


4 


MOVEMENT 


| BERTRAM | 
i C. A. i 
| WINDLE | 








AN CF Ph 


wt 





BROS LOOs = W6 L926 
Windle, Bertram Coghill 


Alan, 1858-1929. 
Who's who of the Oxford 
movement 





e.4 





Who’s Who of the 
OXFORD MOVEMENT 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/whoswhoofoxfordm0Owind 





‘PIT “OD pur ) 


TEQI NI NVWMAN AUNTY NHO[ 
‘XTTIZOJA, SVWOH T, ‘AGNOUT TIAAANY AYVHOIY 


psofxQ ‘abaljoD 1a4Q ‘Is0204g ayy, fo uorssimsagd Kq pasy 

















\ 


Ce ; | ’ : 
Who’s Who of the 
OXFORD MOVEMENT 


Prefaced by a brief Story 
of that Movement 





BERTRAM C. A.’WINDLE 


M.A., LL.D., SC.D., PH.D., F.R.S., K.S.G. 
ST.MICHAEL’S COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 








THE CENTURY CoO. 
New York & London 





SS ESR SSE ST LS STE TU OST 


Copyright, 1926, by 
THE CENTURY Co. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


To 
MY DEAR AND VALUED FRIEND 
MONICA TAYLOR 
SISTER OF NOTRE DAME AND DOCTOR OF SCIENCE 


PREFACE 


OR years a student of the Oxford Move- 

ment, like many another I found myself at 
first confused by the multiplicity of names, some of 
them identical, which came under the reader’s notice. 
To clear this matter up for myself, I began long 
ago a card index of all persons connected with the 
Movement where were noted the chief facts of 
their lives. To that, in time, I took to adding the 
often vivid and vigorous remarks made about many 
of them by their contemporaries, whether friendly 
or unfriendly. Then it came into my mind that 
such a compilation—for that is what it is—might 
act as a guide or even a kind of ‘“‘Who’s Who” to 
others who might be studying the period and yet 
anxious to save themselves constant reference to 
biographical dictionaries and the like. And so the 
work was brought toan end. Then an experienced 
friend suggested that to send it out in the form con- 
templated was to confine its usefulness to those who 
were conversant with at least the main course of 
the Movement, obviously no very large body of 
men, and that an introduction, sketching briefly that 
course and underlining its most remarkable inci- 


dents, would make it serviceable to a large number 
vii 


Vill PREFACE 


of readers. And so that was added. I am in- 
debted, naturally, to a number of books, duly ac- 
knowledged, and also to many friends, such as the 
late Mgr. Parkinson, Canon Burton, and Brother 
Vincent of the London Oratory, who have helped 
me in hunting up records of the more obscure per- 
sons. My ambition was to note everybody, but 
some—like ‘‘young Mr. Woodmason,” who has cost 
me hours of hunting in books—have eluded all 
search and I am convinced, are irrecoverable. 
There may be errors in a book where such abundant 
chances are offered; if so, I shall be grateful for-cor- 
rections. 

BERTRAM C. A. WINDLE 
St. Michael’s College, Toronto 
September, 1925 


WHO'S WHO OF THE OXFORD 
MOVEMENT 








" ah" ih Se Tt 
ple ee oye ed a, aay 2 
| ; He ea bia a bia 
wr - t } ‘ i ) Big ont ep fe ay late % 
| | tk ANG Bas OR YT te 7: 
é ee, 


fit: 
ae 


Who’s Who of the 
OXFORD MOVEMENT 


HERE is no part of the world in which the 
English language is spoken where the vibra- 
tions of that great religious disturbance set up by 
the Oxford Movement have not been felt. Shortly 
before the outbreak of the World War, for ex- 
ample, there was even from far-off Zanzibar a pro- 
test against religious proceedings at Kikuku, a still 
more remote spot in Central Africa inhabited by 
natives described in the book which deals with them 
as ‘‘a prehistoric people,” which protest was as surely 
an outcome of the Movement as any of the events 
which are to find a place in these pages. ‘To under- 
stand the Movement, and it is well worth under- 
standing, one must first understand the time at 
which and the conditions under which it came into 
being. 

I have elsewhere remarked that about such mat- 
ters of history one can often find assistance from 
the novelists, as “‘the brief abstracts and chronicles 
of the time,” and in part we may rely upon them 

3 


4 WHO'S WHO OF 


to help us in understanding how things were prior 
to the days of Newman. 

From the period of Elizabeth up to that of the 
Great Revolution in England, the Established 
Church in that country, especially in the Caroline 
period, possessed a body of divines of considerable 
scholarship and often high literary power, and 
taught a doctrine which was later on described as 
“high.” But all this was changed after the Revo- 
lution, and it must be admitted that, during the 
eighteenth century, that Church had sunk to its 
lowest point; indeed a lower is hardly conceivable. 
The ‘‘parson” was the sort of man who could be 
married to the fly-blown lady of pleasure, as Tom 
Tusher was united to Beatrix Castlewood after her 
day of glory had passed, and he might receive in 
time the reward of a bishopric for his pains. 
‘“Thackeray’’—it may be urged,—“and writing one 
hundred years or more after the time!” That may 
be admitted; but Thackeray was saturated with the 
eighteenth century, and if he is to be distrusted, what 
about the testimony of Richardson,—no enemy to 
religion,—of Fielding, of Goldsmith? Parson 
Adams and the Vicar of Wakefield were good men, 
of holy and irreproachable life. But the position 
which they occupied in society shows clearly the con- 
tempt which the better classes had for the church 
to which most of them nominally belonged. Let us 
pass to the early part of the next century and in- 
terrogate Jane Austen, a woman of genius, whose 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 5 


pictures of English country life are obviously faith- 
ful representations of what was then going on. 
She has quite an album of clerics,—pleasant and 
unpleasant, like Mr. Bernard Shaw’s plays,—but 
all having one common bond, that of utter absence 
of any spirituality or any sense of the responsibility 
which they had assumed for the care of souls; men 
who had entered the clerical profession because it 
offered the maximum of leisure with the minimum 
of care, a fixed, if often not over-large, income, 
a good house very often, and plenty of opportunity 
for the amusements presented by the country-side. 
Let it not be supposed that all were of this class. 
There were, we may feel sure, many devoted men, 
serving their God to the best of their ability and 
sacrificing everything to their conceptions of His 
desires. But if the novels are true pictures of the 
general ideas and ideals of a period,—and it is here 
contended that those of the first rank are such,— 
then the general high-water mark of the religion 
was low, though not so low as in the previous 
century. It was at least respectable to be a clergy- 
man, and he would sit above the salt at any table. 
But he was not to be too much of a cleric if he 
wanted to be received on equal terms, and there 
were still people like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, 
who retained no little of the tradition of the previ- 
ous century in her dealings with the parish priest. 
The pool of clerical life was placid, if it were still 
not a little turbid, but it was soon to be thrown into 


6 WHO'S WHO OF 


commotion by blasts from different quarters. “Two 
of these must be briefly considered; the third forms 
the subject of this book. 


THE CAMBRIDGE MOVEMENT 


We need not linger over the episode of John 
Wesley, who, starting out in life, as he did, as a 
High-churchman, might have done the work after- 
ward taken in hand by Newman, for, after his con- 
version to the Evangelical party, Wesley was the 
author of a secession from, not a strong party in, 
the Church of England. It was quite otherwise 
with Charles Simeon (1759-1836), who, after 
passing through Eton, entered the university of 
Cambridge and eventually became a fellow of 
King’s College and minister of Holy Trinity Church, 
both of which preferments he held to the end of 
his days. Hated and insulted at first for his 
unpopular Evangelical views, his undoubted honesty 
of purpose and his firm convictions, coupled with 
what was evidently a very compelling personality, 
in the end made him a great power in Cambridge 
and, indeed, in religious circles. He was one of the 
founders of the Church Missionary Society, still the 
great foreign-works organization of the Evangelical 
party, and was also the adviser of the East Indian 
Office, then responsible for the government of the 
vast Indian Empire, as it was to become, in its 
choice of chaplains. Thus this important part of 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 7 


the world was limited to Evangelical teachers. But 
Simeon was the author of a still more important 
movement. . It may not be known to everybody that 
the presentations to a very large number of the 
benefices in the Church of England, called advow- 
sons, are made by lay persons. ‘The bishop can 
refuse to admit the clergyman put forward, but, 
save for serious moral reasons, the Gorham judg- 
ment and other like events have shown how very 
limited his power is, especially where matters of doc- 
trine are concerned. Such advowsons can be and 
are bought and sold in the open market, like any 
other kind of goods. The purchase may be made 
for the next presentation only or in perpetuity, and 
of course there are methods of evading the laws 
against simony. Now Simeon saw that to set up a 
body of trustees of Evangelical character, legally 
constituting a perpetual corporation, and to vest in 
their hands the advowsons of benefices purchased 
by funds contributed by his followers would be to 
pursue the same policy in regard to various areas 
of England as he was already pursuing toward that 
part of India under British control. Further, with 
a most prescient anticipation of the passage which 
was to take place from rural to urban life, he and 
his trustees set themselves to the task of acquiring 
any important adyowson which came into the 
market, controlling presentation to a benefice in any 
of the larger towns of the land. 

The “Simeon Trustees” are still in existence and 


8 WHO'S WHO OF 


in possession of these valuable advowsons, and are 
thus responsible for the maintenance of a school of 
belief which has hardly retained the high position 
which it once occupied. Let it be at once admitted 
that the adherents of this school were men of utter 
sincerity and in deadly earnest, real believers in 
and lovers of what they thought to be the Gospel 
message and of their Lord. But none the less their 
doctrine was revolting to many, and I, who was 
brought up in it, can testify that in many, as in me, 
it engendered such hatred of all religion as to lead 
to its complete abandonment as soon as domestic 
pressure was removed, and until gentler breezes 
from another quarter made it clear that there was 
more than one way of looking at religious truth. 
Read Mr. Gosse’s classic work, ‘‘Father and Son,”’ 
if you desire to grasp what were the teachings of 
the leaders of this division. Mr. Gosse’s father 
was a Plymouth Brother,—I admit that,—but can 
testify that a very fair reflection of his ways and 
thoughts might have been and was to be found 
within the walls of the Church of England. Or 
consider—and it is, curiously enough, germane to 
the object of the latter part of this book—the case 
of the Rev. John Newton and the unhappy and 
always more than half-insane poet Cowper. New- 
ton was a minister of the Church of England and a 
convinced Calvinist, like most of his Evangelical 
brethren. He was also a man of considerable in- 
tellectual vigor, and, as the Rev. Thomas Scott, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 9 


rector of Aston Sandford, points out in his curious 
and little-known book, ‘“The Force of Truth,’ was 
the man responsible for his conversion. For Scott, 
though also a minister of the Church of England, 
was of Unitarian opinions, from which he was 
turned to Calvinism by Newton. 

‘The detestable doctrine” (of predestination to 
eternal damnation) “‘is simply denied and abjured, 
unless my memory strangely deceives me, by the 
writer who made a deeper impression on my mind 
than any other, and to whom (humanly speaking) 
I almost owe my soul—Thomas Scott, of Aston 
Sandford.” ‘hus Newman in the “Apologia,” and 
he continues: ‘I so admired and delighted in his 
writings, that, when I was an undergraduate, I 
thought of making a visit to his parsonage in order 
to see a man whom I so deeply revered.”” Thus 
in an indirect way was Scott mixed up with the 
Movement, and thus he and his friend Newton 
become associated with the movement dealt with in 
this book. To return to Cowper, who came, to 
his great misfortune, under Newton’s influence, for 
Newton seems to have been a man more suited to 
produce than to cure mental affliction. In one of 
his letters he asks how some young girl, who had 
been, as he admits, driven insane by his sermons, 
was to gain admission to an asylum, and adds: “I 
hope the poor girl is not without concern for her 
soul; and, indeed, I believe a concern of this kind 
was the beginning of her disorder. I believe my 


IO WHO’S WHO OF 


name is up about the county for preaching people 
mad ... whatever may be the immediate cause, I 
suppose we have near a dozen, in different degrees 
disordered in their heads, and most of them, I be- 
lieve, truly gracious people.’”’ Among other things, 
Newton urged Cowper to abandon his task of trans- 
lating Homer, a task taken up because he found 
that it diverted his poor wavering mind and warded 
off attacks of insanity. Yet Newton would have 
him give it up as worldly and sinful, just as Gosse’s 
mother was required by a Calvinistic teacher to 
abandon her gift for writing tales, even though they 
might be of the most innocent character, such being 
regarded as a heinous offense against God. It is 
no wonder that an attitude of this kind toward 
religion should revolt many and drive them into 
utter unbelief, and this, in fact, often happened. 
Of this Cambridge Movement, now that we are 
quitting its consideration, it may be said that it never 
succeeded in capturing or retaining men of high in- 
tellectual caliber, and that of all the parties in the 
Church of England to-day, it is probably the least 
influential, and would be less so than it is but for 
Simeon’s prescience. Yet from it emerged many 
of those who were to transform that church through 
the Movement which is the subject of this book, for 
Newman came from that fold. So also did the 
Wilberforces, whose family menage may profitably 
be considered, as described under the title of the 
‘Clapham sect” by Thackeray in “The Newcomes.” 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT II 


THe LIBERALIZING MOVEMENT 


That the Church of England had always con- 
tained what is commonly, though perhaps not very 
accurately, described as a liberalizing party is of 
course not to be denied, though it slumbered for 
periods of years, awakening from time to time in 
the persons of men like Hoadly, once bishop of 
Bangor, but afterward transferred to Hereford in 
accordance with some curious, but unwritten, law 
which sends so many of the comparatively unortho- 
dox to that pretty little market-town. 

But the man with whom we have chiefly to do is 
Thomas Arnold (1795-1842), best known as head- 
master of the celebrated public school at Rugby. 
That Arnold was beloved by many of his pupils, at 
least, no man can doubt who reads ‘“Tom Brown’s 
School-Days,” as all should do, for it remains, in 
spite of being out of date in its accounts of games 
and in some other ways, by far the best story of 
public-school life in England. How many boys or 
young men to-day would break into tears at the 
news of the death of their head-master, past or 
present? Is there one? Yet Tom did so when he 
heard of Arnold’s sudden death from angina pec- 
toris, and we may suspect that what J'om was 
pictured as doing, was what that other Tom who 
wrote the book actually did. Nevertheless, to 
those who never came under his fascinations and who 
make their acquaintance through their writings and 


12 WHO’S WHO OF 


the memoirs of the period, Arnold and, it may be 
added, the members of the Arnold family generally 
present little attraction. They give one the im- 
pression of being a hard, cold, intellectually self- 
satisfied lot, and that applies to the father Thomas, 
the son Thomas, and the son Matthew. But that 
the father Thomas was a man of great driving 
force is quite manifest, and in nothing more than in 
the vast change which he brought about not merely 
in his own school of Rugby, but in the public schools 
of England in general. It is not, however, of 
Arnold as head-master nor as Regius professor of 
modern history at Oxford that we have here to 
speak, but of Arnold in his influence on religious 
thought. In his earlier days, like many another 
man, he had experienced serious religious difficulties, 
but he overcame them and settled down to a sincere, 
fervent, life-long belief in the teachings of Christ 
as interpreted by himself. For Arnold belonged 
to that band of men at Oxford who have since been 
called ‘‘Noétics’”’ and among whose ranks were num- 
bered, besides Arnold himself, Archbishop Whate- 
ley, Bishop Hampden, and others, who would have 
been somewhat later called “broad churchmen,” and 
whose lineal descendants to-day are those described 
by their opponents as ‘‘Modernists” and by them- 
selves as ‘“‘modern churchmen,” claiming, one must 
suppose, that “There are no other modern church- 
men.’ Arnold was an English Churchman, and 
fully convinced of the mission which that body 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 13 


should have to the country in which it is established; 
and like many another, he shuddered at the condi- 
tion into which religion in England was subsiding 
(and, indeed, if he could have seen what was to 
come, he might well have shuddered), and he set 
himself to endeavor to find the remedy. His idea 
was one which others have entertained and which is 
still by no means without its supporters. It is that 
the Church of England should, through undefined 
measures of comprehension, draw into its fold all 
forms of belief, save the Jewish, of course, with the 
exclusion of infidels. What his intentions were 
with regard to the Roman and Greek churches is 
not clear, and it must be conceded that in his day 
neither of them occupied in England a position 
which compelled attention. 

“Tt is now generally conceded that those dif- 
ferences which were once held to divide the Chris- 
tian Sects from one another (as, Whether or no 
Confirmation were a necessary Ordinance of the 
Church) can no longer be thought to place any 
obstacle against Unity and Charity between Chris- 
tians; rather the more of them we find to exist, the 
more laudable a thing it is that Christian men 
should stomach, now and then, these uneasy Scruples, 
and worship together for all the World as if they 
never existed.” Thus a satirist of to-day, writing 
in the manner of Dean Swift in his “Reunion All 
Round.” And after—beyond the dreams of Arnold 
—providing for the positions in his remodeled 


14 WHO'S WHO OF 


church even of Roman Catholics and Buddhists, he 
concludes, “It shall go hard but within a century at 
most we shall make the Church of England true to 
her Catholic Vocation, which is, plainly, to include 
within her Borders every possible Shade of Belief, 
Quod umquam, quod usquam, quod ab ullis.” Lit- 
erally this was Arnold’s ideal; and how far it is 
from being accomplished, we who look around us 
may see, and wonder how what seems to be so im- 
possible a scheme ever entered into the head of a 
learned historian. It will readily be understood 
that Arnold’s own views were of the kind afterward 
known as “broad,” and that being so, he loathed 
the absolutely opposite tenets of the party of New- 
man and was the author of that fierce invective 
against them which appeared in the ‘Quarterly 
Review” under the title of “The Oxford Malig- 
nants,’ though for that rather offensive title the 
editor, and not Arnold, appears to have been re- 
sponsible. And the pupils who flowed from his 
school to Oxford came, as may be expected, charged 
with his spirit and message. 

Some of them, like Stanley, afterward dean of 
Westminster and Arnold’s biographer, held the 
same principles unchanged, except possibly by aug- 
mentation, until the end. Others, like Ward, made 
a volte-face and swept to the other extreme. Of 
these men, there will be more yet to say. Let us 
now turn to the political and general atmosphere of 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 15 


the time which saw the emergence of that third 
party which forms the real subject of this book. 


THE Eve or THE MovEMENT 


The year before the launching of the great series 
of events included under the name of the Move- 
ment was an eventful one in the British Isles. 
Prior to 1832, representation in Parliament was 
based upon a system long since antiquated. The 
borough of Stratford-sub-Castle, better known 
as Old Sarum,—a place for years without in- 
habitants other than one farmer,—still contains, or 
did until recently, a tree under which that one 
elector used formally to return to Parliament what- 
ever two members were recommended to him by 
his landlord. At the same time, Birmingham, 
Manchester, and other great centers of population 
were unrepresented save as items in the counties 
to which they belonged. Reform bills were passed 
only to be thrown out by the House of Lords, 
always with a substantial number of English bishops 
voting against them, until in 1832, under the threat 
of revolution on the part of the unrepresented 
populace and of the creation of any required number 
of new peers by the king, acting on the advice of 
his minister, the great Reform Act became law. 

It may well be understood that the Church of 
England, always more or less on the Tory side and 


16 WHO’S WHO OF 


markedly so in those days, was not highly popular 
with the new Parliament returned after the Reform 
Act came into operation, and one of the first pro- 
posals was to abolish ten Irish bishoprics. 

That proposal was as gall and wormwood to the 
High Church party, though indeed it is difficult to 
see how it could have been resisted by any reason- 
able men. When the cathedrals and revenues of 
the church in Ireland passed into Protestant hands, 
consequent upon events in England, the people in no 
sense passed with them, as, on the whole and in 
time, they did in the latter country. Thus it 
happened that at the time we have now reached, 
there were occupants of Protestant sees in Ire- 
land who probably drew more golden sovereigns 
per annum for such duties as they performed than 
they had spiritual subjects under their charge. 
Still, the attempt to alter this state of affairs was, 
to the High Church party, simply sacrilege—a put- 
ting out the hand to touch the Ark of the Covenant, 
and that because it was an interference in religious 
matters by a secular authority. Of course, the 
answer of the other side was that the entire Es- 
tablishment was a matter of parliamentary creation 
——as indeed it is—and that its Prayer Book was— 
and is—a schedule to the act creating that Establish- 
ment, and that what secular authorities had set up,. 
secular authorities could change. Nevertheless, a 
protest must be made, and that protest emanated 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 17 


from Oxford, the “home of lost causes,” as one of 
its children called it. In one of those beautiful 
passages which adorn his work on the Movement, 
Dean Church, himself one of the most charming 
figures of the time, gives a picture of the Oxford 
of that day—how different from the Oxford of 
to-day !—in which he points out its close resem- 
blance to one of the old Greek towns, or to some 
self-centered city in Italy during the Middle Ages, 
with its own life, its privileged powers, making it 
unlike any other town in England, with the ex- 
ception of its sister Cambridge; ‘‘its democratic 
Convocation and its oligarchy; its social ranks; its 
discipline, severe in theory and usually lax in fact; 
its self-governed bodies and corporations within 
itself; its faculties and colleges, like the guilds and 
‘arts’ of Florence; its internal rivalries and dis- 
cords; its ‘sets’ and factions.” 

We need not delay to describe it; that has been 
done by the master hand of the leader of the Move- 
ment in his novel—tlet us call it that for want of a 
better term—‘Loss and Gain.” It was from the 
pulpit of the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, over 
the porch of which Laud had erected—to his 
later confusion—a statue of its patroness, the church 
of which Newman was afterward to be vicar, that 
the first call to the ranks of the Movement rang 
out; and, oddly enough, it was at an assize-sermon 
that the note was sounded. 


18 WHO'S WHO OF 


1833. THE AssiZ—E SERMON 


Those who remember their ‘Cranford’ can 
hardly forget the one great incident in the life of the 
late vicar of that place, defunct when we make its 
acquaintance, the father of the Misses Deborah and 
Matty. That great incident was the preaching of 
the assize-sermon, and such an event was a mile- 
stone on the path of many a worthy rector or vicar, 
especially if, as in the case of the vicar of Cran- 
ford, the sermon was afterward published. Oxford, 
it must be remembered, like its sister Cambridge, 
is a county as well as a university city, and the 
representatives of the crown and the law pay their 
visit there, in course of their assize, to hear and 
adjudicate upon such cases as may have found a 
place on the list. 

When such a visit covered a Sunday, the judges 
were expected to go to the principal church in 
state, wearing their scarlet robes and full-bottomed 
wigs and accompanied by their javelin-men, with 
the high sheriff in attendance, and there they were 
treated to some very special discourse delivered by 
some specially selected preacher. It was before 
such an audience that John Keble, on July 14, 1833, 
delivered his memorable address entitled “‘National 
Apostasy.’’ Keble was a man with a remarkable 
career behind him at the university. He had come 
up at the almost unheard of age of fifteen; had 
swept the university of prizes and distinctions; and 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 19 


by his nineteenth year was a fellow of Oriel, at 
that time as high a reward as could be looked for. 
Keble, whom Thomas Carlyle in one of his most 
bilious moments no doubt, described as like a mon- 
key, was really by all accounts—and indeed his pic- 
tures show that these accounts are not exaggerated 
——a man of singular beauty, and, we are told also, 
of silver speech. That he was a poet everybody 
knows who is acquainted with the “Christian Year,” 
and that he was a modest one is proved by the fact 
that it was only under what virtually amounted to 
the orders of his father that he ventured to bring 
that book to publication. Keble and Newman were 
close friends, and it is told of Hurrell Froude that 
he said that if he were called on to say what good 
deed he had done in his life, he would rely on the 
fact that he had made these two understand each 
other. Yet when Keble was a candidate for the 
provostship of Oriel, the highest place in the college, 
it was the influence of Newman which kept him 
from election and put into office Hawkins, who was 
afterward to place Newman in the position of the 
“engineer hoist with his own petard’’ by excluding 
_ him from the tutorship to which Newman had at- 
tached so much importance. Keble remained all 
his life at the quiet country vicarage of Hursley, 
where in the evening of his days he was visited by 
his old friend, then a cardinal of the Roman Church. 
It is a remote spot. I visited it once as the autumn 
twilight was closing the day, and a few silent folk 


20 WHO’S WHO OF 


passed one by one into the church for evening 
prayer. Keble had then long been in his grave, but 
it seemed as if his gentle spirit hovered round the 
scene where his footsteps had so often fallen. 

Such was the preacher of the sermon, and like 
most sermons on such occasions, it produced—for 
the moment, at least—no particular effect. One of 
the judges is said to have made the solemn pro- 
nouncement that it was ‘‘an appropriate address.”’ 
Like many another of his brethren, he very probably 
slept soundly through it. If not, he used as inade- 
quate a term for the sermon as Isaac Williams did 
when he said that Law’s ‘Serious Call” was “a 
pretty book.” J. B. Mozley, that fine thinker, was 
much nearer the truth when he declared that it was 
‘a kind of an exordium of a great revolution.” It 
was a call to arms, and the times warranted it. In 
the previous year Arnold had declared that “the 
Church as it now stands, no human power can 
save,’ later on in the same year adding to Whateley, 
‘Nothing can save it but a union with the Dis- 
senters.” Such was his panacea; it was far from 
being that of Keble and those with whom he was 
associated. ‘Their plan was stare super anliquas 
vias. Let us return to the old days of church 
discipline and church worship. Not yet, let us note, 
in any way to the old pre-Reformation days when 
the great cathedrals and other houses of prayer 
were built and resounded daily with the Ceremonies 
of the Mass. That idea was to come much later. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 21 


For the time being, the solid Anglicanism of the 
Caroline period seems to have formed the ideal of 
the party, for that it was now to become. Two 
further and important events in the same year 
brought about the formation of that party. 


THE HADLEIGH CONFERENCE 


Hadleigh, a country place in Suffolk, is a spot 
of some interest and beauty, for in pre-Reformation 
days its rector was also dean of Bocking and it 
was in the fine tower of the Deanery (built in 1495) 
that a memorable conference was held at the in- 
vitation of Hugh James Rose, a Cambridge gradu- 
ate who was at the time rector. There were also 
present Hurrell Froude from Oxford (of whom 
more shortly) and, from the same _ university, 
Perceval, a sprig of nobility and a royal chaplain, 
but not one of much import in the further history 
of the Movement. From Trinity College, Dublin 
(the three old universities being thus all repre- 
sented), came William Palmer, a liturgical student 
then settled in Oxford for purposes of study. 
Trench, afterward archbishop of Dublin, who was 
then Rose’s curate, was present, but only as a lis- 
tener and, as it turned out, a most forgetful one, 
for, among other inaccuracies, he tells us that he 
remembers taking a walk at the time with New- 
man, who was never near the conference. Rose, 
a remarkable man, died young; so did Hurrell 


22 WHO’S WHO OF 


Froude, but not before he had played a large part 
in the events of the day. Neither Palmer nor Perce- 
val figured largely in subsequent doings. Froude 
was the most impatient—may I say ?—of these men 
and was perhaps a little dissatisfied at the festina 
lente attitude which they seem to have adopted, and 
when he returned to Oxford, in the course of a con- 
versation shortly afterward with Isaac Williams, a 
prominent man, he said: ‘Isaac, we must make a 
row in the world. . . . Church principles forced on 
people’s notice must do people good. . . . We must 
try.’ Further, he pointed to what had been effected 
by the Evangelical party without, as he contended, 
half as much material at their disposal to aid their 
argument. 


THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES 


These publications were the first attempts in the 
direction of the “row” which Hurrell Froude de- 
sired, and they were, at their commencement, solely 
the work of John Henry Newman who rapidly be- 
came the leader of the Movement. 

J. A. Froude, himself for a time an adherent, 
though far removed from his former footing at the 
time that he wrote, said of Newman, ‘The rest were 
all but as ciphers, and he the indicating number.” 
It is a hard saying when one remembers the names 
of Pusey, Church, and many another associated 
with the party, but such is the summing up of an 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 23 


eye-witness as to the relation of Newman to the 
Movement with which his name will always be 
associated, and that in spite of the fact that the 
term ‘‘Newmanite” had a short and ineffectual life, 
while that of ‘“Puseyite”’ (for reasons shortly to be 
named) usurped and held its place. 

Newman came out of an Evangelical nest, and 
as an Evangelical came up to Trinity College, Ox- 
ford, from which he graduated, obtaining only a 
second class at his degree examination. His real 
merits were, however, recognized and his compara- 
tive failure attributed correctly to a breakdown in 
health; and thus he was shortly after elected to a 
fellowship at Oriel, a distinction then among those 
most coveted in the university. He himself has 
given a graphic account of his entry to the Common 
Room to be introduced to his new colleagues, and 
narrates how he almost sank through the floor 
when Keble came up to shake hands with him. The 
acute critic who so inaccurately described the ap- 
pearance of Keble once committed himself to the 
opinion that Newman had the brains of a rabbit. 
Such was not the opinion of the provost and fellows 
of Oriel when they elected him into their society, 
nor does the world at large hold that opinion to-day 
concerning one who-—at the lowest rung of the 
ladder of appreciation—at least could handle the 
English language as few but he have ever been able 
to handle it. Newman’s history is so largely that 
of the Movement that we shall meet him time and 


24 WHO'S WHO OF 


again in these pages. For the present let us turn 
to the consideration of the ‘“Tracts,”’ for by that 
somewhat forbidding title, especially forbidding at 
that time, these documents were known. ‘The first, 
written by Newman, was a four-sided pamphlet, if 
it may be dignified by such a name, entitled 
“Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission,” sold at 
One penny and issued anonymously; indeed, it com- 
menced with these words: ‘I am but one of your- 
selves—a presbyter; and therefore I conceal my 
name, lest I should take too much on myself by 
speaking in my own person. Yet speak I must; 
for the times are very evil, yet no one speaks against 
them.” The second was also by Newman, and he 
tells us how he and others used to ride about the 
country distributing the tracts at the rural par- 
sonages. Palmer and Perceval were at first alarmed 
at what was going on, but in the end, both con- 
tributed tracts. Such was the story until we arrive 
at “Tract 18.’ Up to that point the tracts had 
been really tracts and small ones at that. But 
‘Tract 18’? was a work of some size, and of great 
learning, on fasting; and though it was not exactly 
signed, it yet bore the well-known initials E. B. P. 
at its foot, so that all men might know that Edward 
Bouverie Pusey was responsible for it. From that 
moment, or from one not far removed from it, the 
Movement had a name, and Puseyism it became; 
and that name has penetrated into all the civilized 
languages of the world, not even excepting Greek, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 25 


where Pouzeismoés describes a movement of which 
Pusey—its eponymous hero—never was, nor indeed 
aspired to be, the leader. Pusey was only a year 
older than Newman and three in front of Hurrell 
Froude, but, from his position, Pusey lifted the 
movement out of the ranks of one mainly associated 
with the younger and, it might be supposed, less 
responsible dons. ‘‘Pusey,’”’ says Newman, “gave 
us a position and a name.’’ He was professor of | 
Hebrew and a canon of Christ Church, and that was 
remarkable at his age and eloquent testimony to the 
immense wealth of learning which he had accu- 
mulated, partly by studies in Germany; and at that 
time such studies were far less common than they 
afterward became under the influence of the Prince 
Consort. 

Until we arrive at the date of later and more 
fateful tracts, there is no need to dwell on these 
productions which, from something little more than 
leaflets, increased in size until they became small 
volumes. 


1836. THE Hamppen CONTROVERSY 


Among the numerous endowments of the Uni- 
versity of Oxford is one which provides a Bampton 
lecturer with a stipend for the delivery of certain 
sermons in each year. Naturally, these discourses 
vary considerably in value, and for the most part 
are listened to by few and soon fall into neglect, if 


26 WHO'S WHO OF 


they ever rise from it, after they have been pub- 
lished. But from time to time, there are lectures 
—like, for example, those of J. B. Mozley and 
others—which really justify the endowment; and 
as its story is that of most of these lectureships, it 
may be allowed that the money has not been spent in 
vain. Now in the year 1832, these lectures were 
delivered by Dr. Hampden, then principal of St. 
Mary Hall, a minor house in the university. From 
what his contemporaries said of him, he was dull, 
dry, and deterrent, though he had a most brilliant 
career as a student. However, having been ap- 
pointed Bampton lecturer, he very naturally desired 
to do his best to make his lectures memorable. 
He did, though by no means in the way he intended. 
There was at that time living in Oxford a curious 
character named Blanco White. Of English de- 
scent, but born in Spain, he was a Catholic by birth, 
had been brought up in that church, and actually 
ordained one of its priests. Abandoning his re- 
ligion, he came over to Oxford and settled down 
there. He became a friend of Newman’s, one 
nexus between them being the intense love which 
both possessed for the violin. Hiampden con- 
ceived the project of lecturing on the scholastic 
philosophy, a subject of which he, like everybody 
else in Oxford and of Oxford breeding, was almost 
entirely ignorant. Blanco White had, of course, 
been trained in the traditional philosophy of his 
church, and to him Hampden went for information. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 27 


Whether the resultant lectures were heretical as a 
consequence of Hampden’s own views of things, or 
because White had made them so, or because, not 
understanding his subject, he had muddled his mean- 
ing, does not much matter to a generation which 
never has and never will read these lectures. They 
fell almost still-born from the press; but obviously 
some one at the time must have read them, for 
when, in the year we have now reached, Lord 
Melbourne, then the Whig prime minister, ap- 
pointed Hampden to the Regius professorship of 
divinity, no small stir arose. Tractarians, as they 
were now called, joined with Evangelicals to de- 
nounce the appointment, one of the journals of the 
latter section declaring that ‘Protestantism was 
stabbed to its very vitals.” Melbourne—a perfect 
Gallio—paid no attention to all this disturbance, and 
the disappointed opponents of Hampden were left 
with one only means of revenge. There is a body 
of persons in Oxford charged with the task of 
selecting those divines who are to preach the formal 
university sermons, and of that body, very naturally, 
the Regius professor of divinity was a member. 
But not ex officio, and the revenge taken by his 
opponents was to bring before Convocation, that 
is, the body of graduates, a measure depriving 
Hampden of any right to vote on these preachers. 
The measure was carried by 474 votes to 94. It 
was the zenith of the [Tractarian Movement, though 
it must be remembered that, in this case, they and 


28 WHO’S WHO OF 


their opponents within the camp of the Establish- 
ment made common cause. Time, however, as 
Dean Stanley pointed out in a remarkable leaflet 
published later, was to have its revenge and the 
Tractarians were to be dealt with in like manner as 
they had dealt with their opponent, under circum- 
stances yet to be related. Even at the time it was a 
costly victory; for the liberalizing party, to whom, 
of course, Hampden was dear, ignoring the Evan- 
gelical wing,—strong, if strong at all, only in votes, 
—directed their animosities against the Tractarians, 
whose pens had been wielded and with effect against 
the Regius professor of divinity. Now for the 
first time was the accusation of Romanizing brought 
against Newman and his allies; and in the year with 
which we are dealing, Newman thought it well to 
define his position in the series of lectures on “‘Ro- 
manism and Popular Protestantism” which he de- 
livered on week-day afternoons in a side chapel 
of the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, of which he 
was now vicar. The chapel was named after one 
Adam de Brome, and in its precincts Newman gave 
utterance to several of the discourses which after- 
ward became parts of his published works. ‘Those 
of which we have been speaking were issued as 
the second volume of the “Via Media,” and 
definitely condemn the Roman Church, while giving 
it credit for some good points, a concession not of- 
ten made at that date nor in that place. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 29 


1838. HuRRELL FROUDE’s “REMAINS” 


Some mention has already been made of Hur- 
rell Froude, and something more must now be said 
of him and of his family. He was one of three sons 
of Archdeacon Froude, of Totnes, in Devon. Wil- 
liam Froude, the youngest, was an intimate friend of 
Newman, and afterward became the first authority 
in England on battle-ship construction. His wife 
became a Catholic, and his children were brought 
up in that faith, for the late R. E. Froude, who died 
but a short time ago and had followed his father in 
his ship-designing task, was and remained a member 
of that body. But William Froude made no claim 
to be a supporter of any special creed. John An- 
thony, the third brother, was for a time a strong 
adherent of the Movement, but the pendulum in his 
case, as in that of Mark Pattison, went full swing, 
and both fell into complete disbelief in all religion. 
Hurrell was a quite different character, a man, as 
Dean Church says, who had about him “‘an awful 
reality of devoutness.”’ He was afflicted with con- 
stant ill-health, which took him away from England 
on various occasions, one of them being that memo- 
rable journey taken with Newman, on which, after 
an illness almost unto death, the latter wrote the 
hymn “Lead, kindly Light,’ known the world over. 
While he lived, there is no doubt that Hurrell 
Froude was the motive force of the Movement and 


30 WHO’S WHO OF 


went very much farther than Newman and others 
were then prepared to go. Newman tells us that 
Froude could not bring himself to believe that New- 
man regarded Rome as Antichrist, for his own view 
was quite otherwise; indeed, if there were any 
foundation for the accusation of Romanizing in the 
sayings of Hurrell Froude, justification for that ac- 
cusation might be found. And before long, found 
it was. Newman, great man that he was, does not 
seem to have been possessed of much sense of ap- 
preciation of the possible consequences of any given 
publication. Other instances of this will require to 
be noticed, but the first is that of the publication of 
what, in the somewhat lugubrious phraseology of 
the time, were described as ‘““The Remains” of Hur- 
rell Froude; in other words, his letters, table-talk, 
and so on. Now Hurrell Froude was very out- 
spoken with his private friends and in his letters to 
them, and nothing could possibly have been more in- 
judicious, in the interests of the party of the Move- 
ment, than the virtually uncensored publication of 
all his most intimate thoughts. Yet such an idea 
never seems to have entered Newman’s mind, and 
he was aghast at the effect which the two volumes 
produced. 

One must remember that at the time in question 
the Reformation was still an object of affectionate 
respect with all, and its heroes were heroes indeed, 
not to say saints. 

There are doubtless those to-day who share in 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 31 


those views, but it may fairly be said that if they are 
not now in a minority, there is at least another very 
large and powerful party, of course outside the 
church against which the guns of the Reformation 
were directed, whose ideas would not differ in any 
way from those held by Hurrell Froude. But that 
was a good deal more than half a century ago and 
things have changed since then. ‘The Reformation 
was a limb badly set; it must be broken to be 
righted.’ Such was one of his sayings, and to the 
ears of those accustomed to think of Elizabeth as 
a God-sent savior of the church, and the Reformers 
as His chosen servants, such an expression must have 
sounded almost blasphemous. At any rate, the 
publication of these papers still further turned the 
tide, and made people really believe that, under their 
protestations of English churchmanship, Newman, 
Froude, and others were really trying to bring their 
country once more under the Roman obedience. 
What else could they think when they read Froude’s 
account of the visit paid to Wiseman, not then car- 
dinal, but a monsignor and resident in Rome. ‘‘We 
got introduced to him,” writes Froude, no doubt 
partly in jest, “‘to find out whether they would take 
us in on any terms to which we could twist our con- 
sciences, and we found to our dismay that not one 
step could be gained without swallowing the Council 
of Trent as a whole.’ ‘This at least may be said: 
that no accusation of cowardly, sneaking, underhand 
conduct on the part of those responsible for the 


32 WHO'S WHO OF 


publication of such statements should ever have been 
made, though made it was and from many quar- 
ters. 


1839. Isaac WILLIAMS ON “RESERVE” 


A curious instance of misjudging the public at- 
titude occurred in the next year. Isaac Williams, 
to whom Hurrell Froude confided his intention of 
“making a row,” came up to Oxford an excellent 
cricketer without any special interest in religion, but 
was soon caught up in the whirlwind of the Move- 
ment. He got to know Keble through winning a 
Latin poem prize, went down to spend the long vaca- 
tion with him at his curacy, and there found his soul, 
and perhaps also had his first poetical fancies stirred 
within him. Williams became curate to Newman at 
St. Mary the Virgin, and devoted himself to poetry 
and religious duties as a typical old High-churchman. 
While staying in Gloucestershire, with Prevost, a 
man loosely connected with the Movement, Wil- 
liams got together a number of ideas, from the 
Fathers and elsewhere, in opposition to an Evan- 
gelical habit of that day—perhaps even later—of 
using what to many was absolutely painful language 
on topics like the Atonement. On Newman’s ad- 
vice, this was published as a “‘Tract” under the title 
“On Reserve in Communicating Religious Knowl- 
edge,” and it may be conceded that a less felicitous 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 33 


title could hardly have been selected. It at once be- 
came the object of a storm of denunciation, and it 
is quite probable that many of those who denounced 
it (as in the case of the then bishop of Gloucester) 
knew nothing of it but its title. What the writer 
aimed at was to persuade a certain school to use 
language in their expositions less hurtful to more 
sensitive hearers than apparently they were accus- 
tomed to. What it was claimed that he meant was 
that there were esoteric doctrines, arcana secreti, 
which must be kept from the common herd and re- 
served only for those who were fitted to receive 
them. One result was the failure to secure a posi- 
tion for which he was well fitted, as must now be 
told. 


1841. THE PoETRY PROFESSORSHIP 


Appointments are made to chairs at Oxford in 
diverse ways, and this particular chair was in the 
gift of Convocation, perhaps as incompetent a body 
to decide on the selection of a suitable occupant for 
this or for any other professorate as well can be 
imagined, since it consists very largely of persons 
living at a distance, out of touch with university 
affairs, and eminently accessible, therefore, to in- 
fluence of a kind other than purely academic. 

The chair of poetry fell vacant. Isaac Williams, 
known as a minor poet of some standing, became a 


34 WHO'S WHO OF 


candidate. That he was the best man available at 
the time, no one now doubts; perhaps no one did 
then. But he was a Tractarian and he had written 
a notorious tract himself and was thus, of course, 
quite unfitted to discourse on the subject of poetry. 
A rival, a certain Mr. Garbutt, of Brasenose,— 
Williams was of Trinity——was brought into the 
field, whose claims to lecture on poetry or indeed 
any other subject were never revealed. But he was 
not a Tractarian, and it was soon obvious that he 
was going to be elected. In order to avoid the 
trouble and expense of an election, those acting for 
the candidates had a ‘“‘show-down”’ of promised 
votes. There were 921 for Garbutt and 623 for 
Williams, who thereupon withdrew. Garbutt was 
elected without opposition, wrote and printed a 
Latin disquisition, “De Arte Poetica,’ probably 
never read by eyes other than his own and the print- 
er’s, and subsided into the quiet nonentity from 
which he had been dragged to serve the purpose of 
the stick with which the Tractarian dog might be 
beaten. 


1841. NEWMAN AND OXFORD 


This year was the crucial year of the Movement, 
and the first debacle which it experienced was the 
defeat described in the previous section. But above 
all things was it crucial in the career of its leader. | 
At this time he was perhaps the most prominent 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 35. 


man in Oxford—vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, re- 
nowned as a preacher, revered by his following as a 
leader sans peur et sans reproche. 

Besides his church in Oxford, Newman’s pastoral 
charge included a tiny village three miles distant 
from the city, called Littlemore, where he built a 
small church for the convenience of the inhabitants 
and where he afterward took up his residence. It 
will be remembered that Newman had been largely 
responsible for the election of Hawkins to the pro- 
vostship of Oriel, and thus to his being placed among 
the rulers of the then unreformed university of Ox- 
ford. If ever men took themselves seriously, these 
heads of houses did, and not infrequently they and 
their head for the year, the vice-chancellor, were 
responsible for action which could but make them 
ridiculous in the eyes of sensible and reasonable 
men. Of course, there was much excuse for them, 
for the groove of academic life was then even nar- 
rower than it is to-day, in this age of married fel- 
lows and women’s colleges. In the day we are dis- 
cussing, the relics of Catholic ages survived in Ox- 
ford in so far that marriage was forbidden to all 
but professors and heads of houses. 

These last, living in a little atmosphere of mutual 
admiration—tempered, doubtless, by mutual dis- 
trust and sometimes, perhaps, dislike,—rapidly came 
to think that their opinions were really those of Sir 
Oracle and unchallengeable. Of all these men, the 
most ardent against the Tractarian Party was Haw- 


36 WHO’S WHO OF 


kins, who owed his election to the provostship very 
largely to the action of the man who led that party. 
That such had been the case was not and could not 
be any argument with Hawkins, doubtless fully con- 
vinced that he was right and the other side wrong; 
but it is a curious instance of the irony of fate. Let 
it be remembered that the.senior by far in years of 
this body of heads ‘was Routh, that remarkable old 
man, for more than half a century president of 
Magdalen College, who, dying in his hundredth 
year, carried down almost to our own days the liv- 
ing memory of Samuel Johnson, and that Routh had 
no old-man attitude toward Newman, but treated 
him with kindness and consideration when almost 
every other hand was against him. But Routh was 
only one, and of the others nothing further need 
here be said. It was with such men that Newman 
was now to come into conflict. This was in con- 
nection with the ““Tracts for the Times,” to which it 
is now necessary to return. These publications had 
alarmed some of the supporters of the Movement, 
like Palmer and Perceval, but a more serious effect 
was produced when, in 1839, the bishop of Oxford 
spoke of them in a pastoral address in terms of some 
reprehension. To Newman, ‘‘a bishop’s lightest 
word ex cathedra [ was] heavy,” as he himself wrote, 
and he at once offered to stop the issue of further 
tracts. For the time no such order was given and 
the tracts continued to appear. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 37 


Tract NINETY 


Newman himself tells us that for years he had 
been teased by the question arising in his own mind 
or put to him by others: ‘‘What do you make of the 
Thirty-nine Articles, which are supposed to be bind- 
ing on all officially connected with the Church of 
England? How do you reconcile such very strong 
statements as they admittedly contain with the views 
which you hold on church matters ?”’ 

And he seems to have long contemplated the issue 
of a tract on the subject, the publication of which 
was at last precipitated by the desire of keeping in 
the church certain men who had recently, as New- 
man himself put it, ‘‘cut into the Movement at an 
angle.” Of these, the most prominent was W. G. 
Ward, who was the chief figure in an episode yet to 
be described; but there were others, and they were 
men of standing and importance. ‘There was Fred- 
erick Oakeley, for years a figure of significance in 
the Anglican church as the incumbent of Margaret 
Street Chapel, the pioneer place of advanced ritual, 
afterward a Catholic priest and canon of Westmin- 
ster. There was J. B. (‘‘Jack’’) Morris, and there 
were others. For these men and their like, New- 
man published ‘Tract 90,” and, as in a former case, 
in utter ignorance of the effect which it was to 
\ produce. “Tract 90’? was an effort to show that 
whatever their surface appearances might be, the 


38 WHO’S WHO OF 


Thirty-nine Articles were not really anti-Catholic, 
but only directed against the corruptions of those 
doctrines against which they appeared to be leveled. 

Franciscus a Sancta Clara (in the world, Chris- 
topher Davenport), the Franciscan confessor of 
Henrietta Maria, wife to Charles the First of Eng- 
land, whose name cropped up again and again dur- 
ing bygone controversies as to the validity of An- 
glican orders, said much the same things as New- 
man did; but then the Anglican church was nearer 
to Rome in sentiment in the time of Laud than in 
1840, and things could then be said which were much 
more dangerous utterances at the later date. 
‘Tract 90,” which was in later years reissued with 
the consent of its author—then a priest of the Ro- 
man Church—and preluded by an introduction from 
the pen of Dr. Pusey and a contemporary letter by 
Mr. Keble, is perhaps the only one of the tracts 
which is ever read to-day except by very curious 
students of the period. It must be confessed that 
it is a very remarkable piece of special pleading, 
and that when one has read it carefully one feels 
little surprise that, given the ultra-Protestant tem- 
per of the time, it should have aroused a consider- 
able amount of turmoil. That was what happened, 
and the match was applied to the train by the ir- 
repressible W. G. Ward,—for whose benefit the 
work had been in part writtenn—who rushed into 
the rooms of A. C. Tait, then tutor of Balliol Col- 
lege, Oxford, with the pamphlet, which he threw 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 39 


down on the table with the remark that “here was 
something worth looking at.” ‘Tait was brought up 
as a Presbyterian and had graduated at Glasgow 
University before entering at Oxford. He became 
an Anglican and a very conscientious one, but always 
belonged to that wing which was nearest to the 
church of his birth, and that even after he had risen 
to the dignity of archbishop of Canterbury. Tait 
was not long in taking action, spurred to it, per- 
haps, to some extent by one of the most curious 
characters of the Movement, Golightly, of whom it 
might almost be said, but for his undoubted fervor, 
conscientiousness, and piety, that he supplied the 
comic relief in that tragedy. The other three tu- 
tors were men of smaller caliber than Tait, but the 
“Protest of the Four Tutors” went without delay 
in to the Hebdomadal Board, composed of the 
heads of the colleges, and a week later that body 
issued their formal protest against the tract. A 
pamphlet war ensued in which Newman, Keble, and 
Ward took part and into which interjected himself, 
though it is hard to see what he was doing in that 
galley, a man who was afterward to be a somewhat 
notorious chancellor of the exchequer, commonly 
known as “Bob” Lowe. Seeing the disturbance 
which was caused, Newman again wrote to his 
bishop, offering to discontinue the tracts, and, as a 
fact, they were discontinued and ‘“Tract 90” remains 
Tract the Last. Newman “understood” that if it 
were withdrawn, there would be no more about the 


40 WHO’S WHO OF 


matter; but he had to learn, like many another in 
the bitter school of experience, that ‘‘understand- 
ings’”’ not in black and white are generally misunder- 
standings. At any rate, at the first opportunity 
most of the bishops began to charge against the 
tract in their annual pastorals, going so far as to say 
in one case that it cut the ground from under Chris- 
tianity. That, as Newman remarks, was “the real 
understanding’’—that they should combine in crush- 
ing this deadly heresy. It was the beginning of the 
end with the author of the tract. 


NEWMAN AND THE CHURCH OF ROME 


The moment has now come to sketch that series 
of events which took Newman from his early moor- 
ings and landed him in a church which he had been 
brought up to believe and had for long believed to 
be Antichrist. The change in his religious views 
has been set forth with marvelous skill in the 
“Apologia,” which, by the felix culpa of Charles 
Kingsley, the world has as one of its greatest pieces 
of literature as well as one of its most profound 
psychological studies. Nothing more need be set 
down here than the briefest enumeration of the 
events which took place in the course of this change 
of opinion. 

In 1839, an article appeared in the ‘‘Dublin Re- 
view” from the pen of Nicholas Wiseman, after- 
ward a cardinal and the first archbishop of West- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT Al 


minster, on “The Anglican Claim.” Of this very 
remarkable man it is needless to speak here further 
than to say that from the time when, in 1833, he 
had been visited in Rome by Newman and Froude, 
he had never wavered from the belief that a great 
Catholic revival was bound to take place in Eng- 
land and at no very distant date. With this in his 
mind, he came to England, lectured, was appointed 
to various positions there connected with his church, 
and, when opportunity offered, wrote articles bear- 
ing on the situation in the country of his adoption. 

This particular article compared the Donatist 
schism in Africa with the conditions of the Church 
of England. Newman at first did not see any 
special application, but a friend called his attention 
to the words of St. Augustine there quoted, “Securus 
judicat orbis terrarum,” and he tells us that from 
that moment they rang in his ears as the words of 
the child, “‘tolle, lege,’ rang in those of St. Augus- 
tine. As he himself put it, the article gave him “‘a 
pain in the stomach,” and in that same year, during 
a walk in the New Forest with Robert Wilberforce, 
he confided to him his secret thought that in modern 
controversies, at any rate, it might yet appear that 
the Church of Rome was in the right, and not the 
church to which they both then belonged. ‘Consid- 
ering the tone in which Newman had spoken and 
written in the past, there is no wonder that this 
statement fell on the ears of Wilberforce, as he 
himself said, “like a thunderbolt.” It was after 


42 WHO’S WHO OF 


this that Newman adopted the policy in his writings 
which Mr. Wilfred Ward describes as that of 
“faults on both sides.” 

In 1841, to quote his own words, “‘the ghost had 
come a second time,” in the course of his studies in 
connection wth a book on the Arian history. Here 
again, as in the case of the Donatists, he seemed to 
see history repeating itself. ‘‘I saw clearly that in 
the history of Arianism, the pure Arians were the 
Protestants, the semi-Arians were the Anglicans, 
and that Rome now was what it was.” On top of 
this mental disturbance came the ‘‘Tract go” tur- 
moils, and, as if these were not enough, the question 
of the Jerusalem bishopric. Prussian policy, at the 
time, seemed to be moving in the direction of the 
creation of an episcopal order in the Lutheran or- 
ganization. Of course, such bishops, like bishops 
in some dissenting bodies, would in the eyes of An- 
glicans of the Tractarian type be bishops in name, 
but in nothing else, just as their own bishops are 
held to be by the Roman Church. 

A proposition was made by De Bunsen, the Prus- 
sian minister, that there should be created a bishop- 
ric in Jerusalem which should be alternately tenanted 
by persons of British and of German nomination; 
of course consecrated, at least in the first instance, 
in England. Why Jerusalem? It is somewhat 
hard to say, seeing that the proposed bishop would 
have virtually no flock to look after. It was a long 
way from Germany, and the thin edge of the wedge 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 43 


—if indeed it was that—was unlikely to be looked 
for at that distance. In the end, an English bishop 
was appointed, consecrated, sent out to Jerusalem, 
did nothing in particular,—and did it very well, 
like Gilbert’s House of Lords,—and that was all. 
There never was a second bishop, and consequently 
never a German bishop, so that the main point of 
the Tractarian difficulty never arose. But their 
argument, which was unimpeachable from their own 
point of view, was something like this: ‘“We are a 
church in which the apostolic succession has been 
maintained intact.” Of course, that was a point at 
issue, but I am putting their case as they put it. 
“The Lutherans in Germany have not and cannot 
by any kind of special pleading be shown to have 
maintained any such succession. We are now to 
join with a schismatic and heretical body to set up a 
joint bishopric in a place, by the way, where neither 
of us has any claim to jurisdiction.” 

Newman made a solemn protest as a priest of 
the Church of England against this legislation, which 
protest he sent to his own bishop and to the arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and thus cleared his own con- 
science of any connection with the matter, though, 
naturally enough, he effected nothing else. 

“From the end of 1841, I was on my death-bed 
as regards my membership of the Anglican Church, 
though at the time I became aware of it only by de- 
grees.’ Such was Newman’s own statement, and 
the history of that time must be read in his own 


44 WHO'S WHO OF 


words. There were the episodes of Sibthorpe, the 
tragic comedian of the Movement, and of Lockhart, 
which brought Newman’s connection as a pastor 
with the Church of England toanend. ‘There were 
the visits of Manning, and, later still, of Bernard 
Smith to Littlemore, to which Newman had retired. 
Finally, there was the night of pouring rain on 
October 9, 1845, when Father Dominic, a Passion- 
ist, arrived, drenched to the skin, to be met by 
Newman falling on his knees before him and beg- 

ging admission to the Catholic Church. Of all these | 
things and of certain matters in his later life, notices 
will be found in the latter part of this book. In this 
part we need touch but little more upon him and 
upon his doings as a priest and a cardinal, years 
filled with griefs, anxieties, and yet with consola- 
tions. It was my fortune to have a few interviews 
with him and to hear him preach on the last occasion 
that he ever ascended the stairs of a pulpit. He 
then delivered the series of short discourses on the 
Stations of the Cross which were afterward pub- 
lished in the volume, ‘“‘Meditations and Devotions.”’ 
He was a man in whose face it was impossible not 
to see the deep lines which had been engraved not 
merely by prolonged study, but also by great disap- 
pointments. ‘The last time that I saw him, in com- 
pany with Bishop (afterward Cardinal) Vaughan 
was one month before his death. He was so feeble 
that he was wheeled into the room in a chair and 
could not even lift his hand to raise his little scarlet 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 45 


skull-cap when etiquette required it, so that the ac- 
tion had to be performed by a young Oratorian 
father who stood beside him. His voice was a 
mere whisper, though his mind was perfectly clear. 
I went, almost from his side, to Oberammergau to 
the Passion Play, and on my way home heard a lady 
say to her companion in the coach which was taking 
us to the station, ‘Cardinal Newman is dead.” 
His reception of our deputation was the last public 
act in the life of the founder and leader of the Ox- 
ford Movement. 


WILLIAM GEORGE WARD 


“Farewell, whose living like I shall not find, 
—Whose faith and work were bells of full accord— 
My friend, the most unworldly of mankind, 
Most generous of all Ultramontanes, Ward. 
How subtle at tierce and quart of mind with mind, 
How loyal in the following of thy Lord!” 


So Lord Tennyson wrote of the man who took 
up the reins of leadership after Newman had retired 
to Littlemore and the last scenes of his Anglican life. 
Ward was a great mathematician and logician, and, 
in later days, theologian, but there were, as Stanley, 
one of his greatest friends, points out, extraordinary 
gaps in his knowledge. Standing one day under 
a tree with a young priest, afterward Cardinal 
Vaughan, Ward said to him, “Can you tell me 
the name of this tree?” ‘It is an oak,” was the 


46 WHO'S WHO OF 


reply. “Wonderful man!” said Ward. “I knew you 
to be well versed in theology, but never imagined 
that you were acquainted with all the minutie of 
botany.” 

As may be learnt from the descriptions in the 
latter part of this book, Ward was a man of huge 
bulk, untidy aspect, joyous spirits, and immense 
power of reasoning and of dialectic. ‘He was a 
great musical critic, knew all the operas, and was 
an admirable buffo singer,” so T. Mozley writes of 
him. He was one of the most human, lovable, and 
yet intellectually gigantic members of the Movement, 
into which, as Newman said, he had cut ‘“‘at an 
angle.” “If Ward comes in, he will go far,” said 
one who knew him, and so he did. As a part of the 
Movement, there had been founded a journal known 
as “The British Critic,’ of which for some time 
Newman was editor. When his mind became un- 
settled over religious matters he resigned, and his 
place was taken by his brother-in-law, Thomas 
Mozley, under whose rule Ward was a constant con- 
tributor, though, as Mozley relates, a good deal of 
a thorn in an editor’s side. In the end, Ward and 
others of the more extreme wing made ‘‘The British 
Critic’’ so hot for the fingers of Anglican churchmen 
that it came to an end. Ward was now without 
any regular outlet for his opinions and he sat down 
to compose what was at first intended to be a pam- 
phlet, but grew into a book of respectable size un- 


der the title of “‘The Ideal of a Christian Church,” 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 47 


which appeared in 1844, the year also of the ces- 
sation of “The British Critic.” That this book 
should have raised a storm can produce no wonder 
in the minds of those who have any idea of its 
tendency. The ideal church was that of Rome, and 
Anglicans were implored to “‘sue humbly at the feet 
of Rome for pardon and restoration.” Moreover, 
they were told that the Anglican establishment was 
well on the way to that goal: ‘“‘Oh, most joyful! most 
wonderful! most unexpected sight! We find the 
whole cycle of Roman doctrine gradually possessing 
numbers of English churchmen!” ‘This was out- 
Heroding Herod, if ‘Tract 90” be allowed to stand 
for that monarch, and there can be little wonder that 
once more the magazine writers and pamphleteers 
were in full operation. During the long vacation, 
there was naturally enough a truce; but that once 
over, things began to become lively. Golightly once 
more was filling his role of universal denunciator, 
and the vice-chancellor announced that the book was 
to be brought before Convocation, first, that it might 
be condemned; secondly, and in the event of its 
condemnation being carried, that its author might 
be deprived of his degrees, for that university, like 
many others, has the right to take away the degree 
which it has once conferred; thirdly, and to very 
general disgust, a resolution was to be proposed 
that in future the person who swore adhesion to the 
Thirty-nine Articles, as every one must then do be- 
fore becoming an undergraduate, should swear to 


48 WHO'S WHO OF 


them in accordance with the rigid definitions of the 
sixteenth century, and not in accordance with any 
looser construction which might in latter years have 
been put upon them. 

So great was the indignation as regards this third 
proposal that the heads of houses, in order to carry 
their other proposals, eliminated that particular 
clause, and, for some obscure and not very creditable 
reason, resuscitated Newman’s “Tract 90,” now 
four years old, and asked Convocation to condemn 
that also. When the day came around for these 
matters to be discussed, the Sheldonian Theatre was 
packed with the members of Convocation. The pro- 
ceedings on these occasions are conducted in Latin, 
but on this occasion an exception was made in favor 
of Ward, who was allowed to urge his case in Eng- 
lish. 

The first resolution was carried by 777 to 391. 
There is no reason to complain of this. The univer- 
sity was then a Protestant institution and Ward one 
of its members—even one of its officials. ‘The sec- 
ond resolution, which to-day looks like a rather 
childish bit of revenge, was just carried by 569 to 
gir. Then came the third resolution, which would 
probably have been carried by a similar majority 
but for a special and unusual intervention. Every 
year there are appointed from among the fellows 
of the colleges two officials known as proctors, 
whose duties are largely disciplinary, but who also 
have this further power, that, by their veto, they can 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 49 


stop any motion in Convocation. Of course, the 
estoppel runs only for their period of office, but for 
that period it is final and subject to no revision. 
When a motion is put before Convocation it is 
asked :—“Placetne Magistri? Placetne Domini 
Doctores,” and the voting is “Placet,” i. e., “Aye,” 
or “Non Placet,’ i.e., ‘““No.’ On this occasion, 
after the question had been put, the senior proctor, 
Mr. Guillemard (the junior was Church, after- 
ward dean of St. Paul’s and the historian of the 
Movement) uttered their veto, “Nobis Procuratori- 
bus non placet.’ ‘The vice-chancellor rose and 
terminated the proceedings, and Newman’s tract 
remained and remains uncensured, for the resolu- 
tion was never revived, as it might have been after 
the proctors’ year of office was over. Ward, like 
the Jackdaw of Rheims, was not a penny the worse. 
To the delight and amusement of his many friends, 
and he can hardly have had an enemy, he married 
and within a year he and his wife had joined the 
Catholic Church in advance of their great leader. 

On a previous.page, mention was made of a re- 
markable leaflet issued anonymously at the time, but 
afterward known to be the work of A. P. Stanley, 
at a later date to become the well-known dean of 
Westminster. This document is so curious that it 
may be cited at length. 


1. In 1836, Dr. Hampden was censured by Convoca- 
tion on an undefined charge of want of confidence. In 


50 WHO’S WHO OF 


1845, Mr. Newman and Mr. Ward are to be censured by 
the same body. 

2. In 1836, the country was panic-stricken with a fear 
of Liberalism. In 1845, the country is panic-stricken with 
a fear of Popery. 

3. Four hundred and seventy-four was the majority that 
condemned Dr. Hampden. Four hundred and seventy- 
four is the number of requisitionists that induced the cen- 
sure of Mr. Newman. ° 

4. The censure on Dr. Hampden was brought forward 
at ten days notice. The censure on Mr. Newman was 
brought forward on ten days notice. 

5. Iwo Proctors of decided character, and of supposed 
leaning to the side of Dr. Hampden, filled the Proctor’s of- 
fice in 1836. Two Proctors of decided character, and of 
supposed leaning to the side of Mr. Newman, filled the 
Proctor’s office in 1845. 

6. The “Standard” newspaper headed the attack on Dr. 
Hampden. The “Standard” newspaper heads the attack 
on Mr. Ward and Mr. Newman. 

7. The “Globe” and “Morning Chronicle’ defended 
Dr. Hampden. The “Globe” and “Morning Chronicle” 
defend Mr. Ward. 

8. The Thirty-Nine Articles were elaborately contrasted | 
with the writings of Dr. Hampden, as the ground of his 
condemnation. The Thirty-Nine Articles are made the 
ground of the condemnation of Mr. Ward and Mr. New- 
man. 

g. The Bampton Lectures were preached four years be- 
fore they were censured. The goth “Tract for the Times” 
was written four years before it is now proposed to be 
censured. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 51 


10. Two eminent lawyers pronounced the censure of Dr. 
Hampden illegal. Two eminent lawyers pronounced the 
degradation of Mr. Ward illegal. 

11. The “Edinburgh Review” denounced the mockery of 
a judgment by Convocation then. ‘The English Church- 
man” denounces it now. 

12. And if, on the one hand, the degradation of Mr. 
Ward is more severe than the exemptions of Dr. Hampden; 
on the other hand, the extracts from Mr. Ward give a truer 
notion of the Jdeal than the extracts from Dr. Hampden of 
the Bampton Lectures. 


AFTER THE 1845 SECESSIONS 


The events in the careers of Newman and Ward 
which have found a description in the previous 
pages have been dealt with in some detail because of 
the great importance of the two men, but it must 
not be supposed that they were alone in their action, 
for their departure, and particularly that of the 
leader, was the signal for a number of others, 
whose names will be found in the latter part of this 
book, to cast in their lot with them. Most, if not 
all these men gravitated to Oscott, the Catholic 
seminary of the archdiocese of Birmingham to-day, 
but then of the Midland District, for the country 
had not yet been divided up into dioceses by the 
Pope. Oxford was in that Midland District as it 
is now in the archdiocese of Birmingham, and it was 
natural that the converts from that place should 
come to their episcopal center for confirmation. 


52 WHO'S WHO OF 


Newman and his party settled down first in a small 
establishment, a couple of miles from the college, at 
Oscott, then called Old Oscott, but since Newman 
occupied it, Maryvale. It was a place which had 
been established by that stalwart combatant Bishop 
Milner, author of “The End of Controversy” and 
other books, the harbinger of the Gothic revival, 
and one can still see the room where he was ac- 
customed to sleep when his arduous labors enabled 
him to get a few days of peace in this quiet spot. 
Later on, Newman and his party went off to form 
the Oratory, first in Birmingham, then also in 
London, and to be joined by Faber, a man so re- 
markable that he cannot be passed over in silence, 
and the Wilfredians, as they were called, a group 
of converts who had joined themselves to him. It 
is interesting to look at the records of Oscott Col- 
lege and to read the names of men who have since in 
one way or another made themselves prominent or, 
in other cases, have never emerged from obscurity, 
all of them migrants, so to speak, from Oxford to 
Oscott. 

The following passage from the published records 
will give an idea of what was happening: 


1845. This was a memorable year in the history of Os- 
cott on account of the large number of converts from the 
Established Church to whom Oscott opened her hospitable 
doors. On the 11th of May, Bishop Wiseman administered 
the Sacrament of Confirmation to Benjamin Butland and 
St. George Mivart, and on the 15th of August, to William 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 53 


Ward, John D. Dalgairns, Frederick Bowles, and Richard 
Stanton. The 9th of October was a never to be forgotten 
day, for its closing hours witnessed the reception into the 
one fold of our now venerated Cardinal Newman. He was 
conditionally baptised at Littlemore by Fr. Dominic, and on 
the Feast of All Saints received at Oscott the grace of con- 
firmation in company with Ambrose St. John, John Walker, 
and Frederick Oakeley. And later in the same year Thomas 
William Marshall and Henry J. Marshall, converts also 
from the Established Church, were admitted to the same 
Sacrament. 


A few words may well be said here about the 
two men who were most connected with the stream 
from Oxford,—Wiseman and Ullathorne. Both of 
these welcomed the strangers, as indeed they should 
have done, but as was not done by all in the body 
which they were entering. There was a certain 
coolness, strange to say, shown to these persons 
by the old Catholics; even, it is said, by men of the 
standing and intellect of Lingard. Wiseman, who 
from the beginning had looked for and worked for 
just such a harvest, was at this time president of 
Oscott College and also auxiliary bishop to the 
spiritual ruler of the Midland District, Dr. Ulla- 
thorne. He was a bishop, like his superior, in 
partibus infidelium, for there were no territorial 
titles until after 1850. Dr. Wiseman was bishop of 
Melipotamus, hence Thackeray’s ‘Bishop of Mealy 
Potatoes in crimson stockings and partibus infi- 
delium.” 


54 WHO'S WHO OF 


Wiseman was born in Spain of Irish parentage, 
went to Rome as a student, rapidly acquired im- 
mense stores of learning, which he utilized as a 
lecturer, and was for a time rector of the English 
College in the Eternal City. 

Of his later history after the Restoration of the 
Hierarchy, his flamboyant pastoral issued “out of 
the Flaminian Gate,” the absurd no-popery agita- 
tion stirred up largely for political reasons, Wise- 
man’s remarkable letter to the ‘““Times’’ newspaper 
which suddenly arrested that agitation,—a real 
tour de force,—and of his latter years, nothing can 
be said here. Suffice it to say that, always kind and 
considerate to those men who had in most cases given 
up friends, position, and income to follow the dic- 
tates of their consciences, he was the chief instru- 
ment in helping them to adjust their lives to their 
new surroundings. The same things in their meas- 
ure may be written about Dr. Ullathorne, a really 
remarkable character, too little known outside the 
ranks of professed students of Catholic history in 
England. At the time of the first influx he was vicar 
apostolic of the Midland District, a post which had 
been held in his day by John Milner. Hence he 
had charge of Oscott College, and for a time Wise- 
man was his assistant. When the Territorial 
Hierarchy was brought into being in 1850, Wise- 
man, as cardinal archbishop of Westminster, became 
primate, and Ullathorne took his place as the first 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT sss 


bishop of Birmingham, for that see, at present an 
archdiocese, was then a bishopric only. 

Ullathorne, of whom an account will be found 
in the latter part of this book, was a strange com- 
bination of learning and apparent, but only appar- 
ent, want of education with a truly Johnsonian 
turn of conversation. It was often my lot to talk 
with him, and it was extraordinary to hear the deep- 
est thoughts issuing in classical language from the 
mouth of a man who never pronounced an initial 
“h” either in private conversation or in the pulpit; 
whence a volume of tales illustrating a foible which, 
it is said, cost him the archbishopric of Westminster 
on the death of Wiseman. To Newman in par- 
ticular, as his life long diocesan, Ullathorne was 
invariably kind and considerate, a fact which was 
emphasized by the cardinal in more than one letter. 

So far our attention has been directed to those 
who left the church into which they had been born, 
but we must not forget the many great men of 
powerful intellect and perfect honesty who saw 
otherwise and remained where they were for their 
lives. Pusey, Keble, the two Mozleys, Church, 
and others, whose names will also be found in the 
latter part of this book, were of this group, and 
not the least of the many interesting things in 
Thomas Mozley’s ‘Reminiscences of Oriel Col- 
lege and the Oxford Movement” is the part where 
he discusses with himself the question ‘““To go or 


56 WHO’S WHO OF 


not to go,” and finally decides it in the negative. 
“The Parting of Friends’ was the last sermon 
preached by Newman as an Anglican clergyman, 
and it was an utterance beautiful and prophetic, for 
the parting was to come and in many cases to be 
life long. Newman and Whateley had been friends, 
and from the latter the former admits that he had 
learnt many things. In later years Newman was 
in Dublin for some years as rector of the ill-fated 
Catholic University, and at the same time Whateley 
was there as Protestant archbishop. Yet they 
never met to speak to one another even in the street. 
‘The Second Spring’ was perhaps the first impor- 
tant sermon preached by Newman in his new sur- 
roundings, and it is unsurpassed in beauty even 
among his writings. It is the counterpart of the 
other, for if one is a lament for the lost, the other 
is a note of joy for what had been gained. At 
eventide it shall be light, and as an old man, New- 
man was made an honorary fellow of his first col- 
lege, Trinity, and at times saw and talked with his 
old friends; but on the whole, he and his companions 
went out of their father’s house into a strange land. 


1850. THE GORHAM JUDGMENT 


1850 was the year of the Restoration of the 
Catholic Hierarchy in England, of which mention 
has just been made, but that event does not seem 
to have influenced one way or the other the flow of 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 57 


the Movement. But it was the year in which an- 
other series of events took place which led to a 
fresh stream of persons seeking the Catholic Church. 
It has already been mentioned that though a lay 
patron may nominate to a living, the gift of which 
is his property, it lies with the bishop of the diocese 
to institute the nominee, that is, to decide whether 
he is a proper person to fill the duties of a parish 
priest in the Church of England. A certain Mr. 
Gorham, who, but for the stir which he caused on 
this occasion, would never have been heard of, had 
been a fellow of one of the Cambridge colleges for 
a number of years when he was nominated to the 
living of Bampford Speke in the diocese of Exeter. 
The then bishop, commonly known as “Henry of Ex- 
eter,’’ was of the old-fashioned High-church school, 
very anti-Catholic, but very tenacious of the doc- 
trines of his own church, as indeed was right. Mr. 
Gorham was the author of some writings which, 
in the bishop’s opinion, contained a denial of the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which to him, 
and perhaps to many—even most—other people cer- 
tainly seems to be clearly laid down in the service 
contained in the “Book of Common Prayer.” 

The bishop refused to institute him, and Mr. 
Gorham very naturally appealed to the Court of 
Arches, which is the ecclesiastical first court of hear- 
ing. That court found in his favor and, the bishop 
again refusing to institute, he exercised his right of 
appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy 


58 WHO’S WHO OF 


Council, the highest court of appeal in these cases. 

It must be noted, first, that that body is recruited 
from persons of all forms and no forms of belief, 
and that there might not, in a given case, be a 
single adherent of the Anglican Church assisting as 
a judge at the hearing; secondly, that the ‘‘Book of 
Common Prayer,” being a schedule to an Act of 
Parliament, the meaning of its words is susceptible 
of judicial determination, just as the phraseology 
of any other act is. In this, in fact, it is claimed, 
is to be discovered the explanation of the apparent 
paradox mentioned immediately above. The 
judges are to say what a certain set of words means 
in law, not whether a certain doctrine is right or 
wrong. 

In this case the Judicial Committee, after hear- 
ing all the arguments, set up a formula of words as 
those explaining Mr. Gorham’s view (it is claimed 
by many that their words do not really convey his 
meaning), and having done so, ruled that this view 
was “Not contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of 
the Church of England as established.’ Hence 
Mr. Gorham was declared eligible to be instituted, 
and in the end he secured his living and returned to 
the comparative obscurity from which he had for 
a time emerged. But the decision made a tremen- 
dous effect. The result of it was to declare that a 
clergyman of the Church of England might teach 
either that a child was or, on the other hand, was not 
regenerated by baptism—in other words, that either 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 59 


one of two perfectly contradictory statements might 
_ betrue. And as the Established Church was, by the 
fact of its establishment, subject to law, that de- 
cision became and remains the settled law of that 
church. That was a state of affairs which could not 
but make an immense impression on many minds. 
And it did. There was a second inflow of converts 
not less important in position than the first, and 
some of these it will now be necessary briefly to 
describe. Let us first consider the case of Henry 
Edward Manning, afterward Cardinal Archbishop 
of Westminster and in his day one of the most im- 
portant personages in the British Empire. There 
is a tiny parish in Sussex named Lavington, so small 
that there is not or was not always a service there 
on Sundays. At the east end of the exterior of 
the church the visitor will see in a row three graves 
of historical interest. One is that of Samuel Wil- 
berforce (often spoken of as ‘‘Soapy Sam’’), at 
first bishop of Oxford, afterward of Winchester. 
Side by side lie his wife and “Caroline wife of the 
Revd. Henry Edward Manning.” Lavington at 
the time of the Oxford Movement was the property 
of a clergyman of the name of Sargent, who, being 
patron of the living as well as squire of the place, 
presented himself to what was doubtless a benefice 
of very small pecuniary value. As he kept a curate, 
it is likely that it cost him more to run his parish 
than he received from it. He had two sons, both 
of whom died in early manhood,—one just after 


60 WHO'S WHO OF 


matriculation at Oriel College,—and four daugh- 
ters, and of their marriages we must now speak. 
One of them married Manning, for a time curate 
at Lavington and afterward vicar. She died years 
before he left the Church of England. A second 
married Samuel Wilberforce, as has just been men- 
tioned. The third married Henry William Wil- 
berforce, brother of Samuel, and the fourth, George 
Ryder, who had been curate to Mr. Sargent. Of 
these people, Henry Wilberforce and his wife, 
George Ryder and his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Pye, 
the latter the daughter of Samuel, all became 
Catholics—a very curious piece of family history. 
At the time of the Gorham judgment, Mrs. Man- 
ning was dead and Manning was archdeacon 
of Chichester and one of the most prominent 
in the Anglican body; in fact, it has been said, 
and apparently with truth, that no power could 
have kept him out of the archbishopric of Can- 
terbury had he continued in the pathway which 
his feet first traveled. He was known to me only 
in his last days, and certainly he was a most striking 
figure and one which excited the curiosity of an 
anatomist eager to discover what interval there was 
for any of the other constituents of the body be- 
tween the skin and the skull and other bones over 
which it seemed to be stretched so tightly. Man- 
ning was the Grandison of Disraeli’s ‘‘Lothair” and 
his personal appearance is there described. He had 
at one time been much opposed to the church which 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 61 


he afterward joined, and even preached a fierce 
sermon against it on Guy Fawkes day, once a day of 
special significance in the Anglican Church, though 
not now. Newman was at Littlemore at the time 
and not a Catholic, but he was so incensed at the 
sermon that when Manning called to see him, he 
sent J. A. Froude who, with Mark Pattison (arcades 
ambo), was then staying with him, to tell the visitor 
that he declined to see him. 

Manning’s last moments in the Anglican Church 
disclose one dramatic moment. It was in a little 
chapel in the Buckingham Palace Road where he had 
been attending the morning service with no less a 
person than William Ewart Gladstone. At the 
conclusion of morning prayer, when the communion 
service was about to be commenced, Manning rose 
and said to Gladstone, “I can no longer communi- 
cate in the Church of England. Come.” Glad- 
stone remained; Manning left. The former con- 
tinued a fervent member of the Established Church 
for the rest of his days. ‘The history of the other 
is sufficiently known. It was badly mauled by his 
first biographer Purcell, who, even with his skill, 
was unable to obscure completely Manning’s great- 
ness of heart and mind, but matters have been recti- 
fied by Mr. Shane Leslie’s work. 

Gladstone, it should be mentioned, had been 
closely associated with the Movement and had come 
up to Oxford on various occasions to vote where it 
was concerned. When the fateful Gorham judg- 


62 WHO’S WHO OF 


ment was made public, among those whom it was 
expected by many to affect was Gladstone. 

Gladstone stayed, to become prime minister of 
England, a post which, as a Catholic, he would have 
been very unlikely to have held. Manning turned 
his back on the archbishopric of Canterbury—if its 
idea had ever crossed his mind—and became a car- 
dinal of the Holy Roman Church and second arch- 
bishop of Westminster, and until those two had 
respectively attained, and for some time held, the 
positions mentioned, neither ever came in contact 
with the other. 

There is another name which cannot be omitted 
from an account of this time of changing opinion, 
and that is the name of James Hope, better known 
by his later name of Hope-Scott. He had been a 
fellow of Merton College, at Oxford, and, having 
studied law, was called to the bar and rapidly secured 
an immense practice. Being a strong adherent of 
the Church of England and at least in sympathy 
with the Movement, he doubtless welcomed the post 
of chancellor to the diocese of Salisbury, an ancient 
office which gave him a right to a stall in the choir 
and a surplice. To this position he was appointed 
by his friend Edward Denison, formerly also a fel- 
low of Merton and for many years bishop of Salis- 
bury and a pronounced High-churchman. Hope 
became a Catholic after and in consequence of the 
Gorham judgment. He married a daughter of 
Lockhart, the son-in-law and biographer of Sir 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 63 


Walter Scott, and, other heirs failing, she became 
the owner of Abbotsford, the house which the 
“Wizard of the North” had built and in which he 
had lived. Lovers of the works of Borrow will 
doubtless remember how, in the introduction to one 
of them, he belabors Sir Walter Scott for his share 
in starting the Oxford Movement. 

There is this truth in what Borrow said, that un- 
doubtedly Scott’s novels, by their sympathetic treat- 
ment of Catholic days in England, did create an 
atmosphere more favorable to such a movement 
than any that had existed at any period since the 
Reformation. It is somewhat curious that his house 
should have fallen into the hands of one who owed 
his conversion to the ancient church to that Move- 
ment. It was when he came into possession of this 
property through his first wife that he assumed the 
name of Scott in addition to his family name. Two 
other very distinguished members of the bar also 
became Catholics about this time. One was Ser- 
jeant Bellasis, always very closely associated with 
Newman, the other was Mr. Badeley, the man who 
in a sense was responsible for the writing of the 
“Apologia” and who was one of the counsel for 
Newman in the Achilli trial. 

With the episode of the Gorham judgment, the 
last great incident in the Movement has been 
reached, and its subsequent history need not be 
treated here. ‘There are, however, two fines of 
consideration which it will be interesting to follow, 


64 WHO'S WHO OF 


as they illustrate the influence of the Movement on 
the history of the land. And first as to architecture 
and church ornament. At the time when the Move- 
ment commenced, as far as the Catholics were con- 
cerned they had hardly any churches, having only 
just emerged from the catacombs of the penal sys- 
tem. Many of the places where they attended the 
services of their church were private chapels in the 
houses of noblemen or landed gentry. And here it 
may be said that the flame of that faith was kept 
alive for more than two hundred years amid cruel 
persecution and impoverishment for religion’s sake 
by just those little private chapels. 

As to the buildings of the Anglican Church, apart 
from the ancient edifices which they had taken over 
at the time of the Reformation and the Palladian 
buildings and those which the genius of Wren 
erected, many later churches were little better than 
barns, and many of them very far less ecclesiastical 
in appearance than the tithe-barns of the Catholic 
era still studded over the land. Oddly enough, it 
was Milner, then a Catholic priest, but afterward 
a well-known bishop, who first lit the fires of the 
Gothic Revival in his still authoritative book on 
Winchester, where he was at that time a priest. 
Fe had yearnings, but without power, to carry his 
ideas out properly, and his chapel in that city was in 
the true “Churchwarden Gothic” style, as it has 
often been called. Yet it was an attempt at better 
things and so dear to Milner’s heart that, when he 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 65 


was called to another place, he was found by a 
friend in his chapel in floods of tears and sobbing 
out the words, “Oh, my dear chapel, how can I ever 
leave thee!” But the real creator of the Gothic 
Revival was Augustus Welby Pugin, a convert to 
the Catholic Church who was convinced by a course 
of lectures given in London by Wiseman when on a 
visit to that city and before the latter became a resi- 
dent in England. Whether or not Pugin designed 
the entire of the Houses of Parliament at West- 
minster is a question never likely to be cleared up, 
but that the major part of the ornament was his 
design, there is no doubt, and he was responsible for 
the erection of a number of beautiful churches, of 
which the first was the cathedral church of St. Chad, 
in Birmingham, the first Catholic cathedral to be 
consecrated since the Reformation. 

As described in the latter part of this book, Pugin 
was an intolerant Goth and would have writhed at 
the thought of a Byzantine cathedral, even such a 
work of genius as that which we owe to Bentley, 
being erected at Westminster. It was not merely, 
however, the shell of the church which interested 
Pugin, but the internal fittings, and for the design- 
ing of these he secured the services of John Hard- 
man, grandfather of the gentleman of that name 
to-day, and of his firm. Moreover, in his yacht 
Pugin used to swoop down on all parts of the north 
French and Belgian coasts and pick up bits of wood- 
work——carvings, church vessels, anything in which 


66 WHO'S WHO OF 


his unfailing eye detected real taste. These he re- 
moved to Birmingham for Hardman to copy, and a 
large number of these fragments and small objects 
are to be seen to-day at Messrs. Hardmans and in 
the museum at Oscott. He also secured larger ob- 
jects for the churches which he was building, and 
the stalls, pulpit, and choir-screen of St. Chad’s are 
all trophies which he bore away from old churches in 
Belgium or Germany which were tired of their 
ancient possessions or perhaps were being pulled 
down to make room for enlarged edifices. The 
Anglican wing had its architects, notably Butter- 
field, who, though a lesser man of genius than Pugin, 
built a number of good churches, and Sir Gilbert 
Scott, who, though not always successful in his res- 
torations, was also the designer of a number of 
buildings of merit. Thus the Movement was 
coincident with a rebirth of church architecture 
which has gone far to remove from the land the 
horrible buildings which once were so unsightly, 
and, at least as important, to put a stop to the 
wretched maltreatments under the name of restora- 
tions which have cost the country so much loss of 
beautiful things. Naturally, the development of the 
‘Movement in the Church of England and its ap- 
proximation to Roman methods has caused a very 
remarkable change in the internal appearance of 
a large number of churches, so that it is at times 
difficult even for the expert to be quite sure at first 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 67 


sight as to which communion a church which he 
enters for the first time really belongs. 

That brings us to the other line of thought, 
namely, the influence of the Movement on the re- 
ligion of to-day. Let us first consider the conditions 
in the church in which the Movement arose. ‘The 
old Evangelical party still exists, but by no means as 
important either in influence or numbers as it was in 
the time of Simeon. Moreover, it has changed and 
developed. One gathers that the Calvinism of 
Mr. Newton has disappeared, and certainly the old 
‘‘three-decker”’ pulpit, reading-desk, and clerk’s desk, 
one above the other, occupying the center of the 
church and concealing to a large extent the 
communion-table, which was common enough even 
when I was a boy, has almost, if not entirely, disap- 
peared. It lingers in pictures, but it has gone with 
- the old village musicians of the gallery which made 
music before organs and harmoniums replaced 
them. The liberal school of Arnold, carried on by 
Stanley and others, on the contrary is much stronger 
among the clergy and even on the Episcopal bench,. 
and it too has developed along its own lines, having 
jettisoned doctrines which Arnold and his school 
held as tenaciously as the other sections of the 
church. The Modern Churchmen are very much 
in evidence to-day and in clear line of descent from 
the party we are dealing with. As to the High- 
church party, out of the bosom of which the Move- 


68 WHO’S WHO OF 


ment arose, that too has grown, until to-day it is the 
most important and active and, it may.also be said, 
successful section of the Anglican body. It too has 
developed, so that, in doctrine, the differences be- 
tween itself and the Roman Church have been so 
far reduced as in some cases apparently to confine 
themselves to the Papal Supremacy and Infalli- 
bility; and even there, recent pronouncements of the 
veteran Lord Halifax, for so many years the lay 
leader of this party, have greatly attenuated the 
wall of division. Thus the impetus started by the 
Movement, so far from having come to an end, 
seems to be gathering force, and it is hard to say 
what might be its product were some further crisis 
like that of the Gorham judgment to arise. The 
Kikuyu affair was to some a crisis of that character, 
but the war, with its arresting influence, pushed that 
into the background, and, when the conflict was over, 
men’s minds were too busy with other things to 
return to it. 

The Roman Church, of course, fey ae enormously 
by the Movement. Prior to Catholic Emancipa- 
tion it had been a negligible factor. Sydney Smith, 
in ‘Peter Plymley’s Letters to his brother Abra- 
ham,” written to promote the cause of the emanci- 
pation of the Catholic body in England, again and 
again returns to his point that they are so insignifi- 
cant as to be negligible and that, even if such were 
their desire, which he denies, it would be impossible 
for them to do any harm. As a matter of fact, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 69 


outside the private chapels already alluded to and 
a few connected with foreign embassies, there were 
but a small number of churches scattered over the 
face of the land. Then at the same time two things 
occurred. First, the Irish famine, which caused the 
emigration from that country to England of many 
thousands of adherents of the Church of Rome. 
These flocked very largely into Lancashire, via 
Liverpool, and thence spread into the Midlands and 
the manufacturing districts. How were they to be 
provided with churches and who was to look after 
them? It was a troublous question for those re- 
sponsible for the affairs of the Catholic Church in 
England. But almost synchronously came the Ox- 
ford Movement, and an influx of Anglican clergy- 
men desirous of becoming priests of the church 
which they had entered. That many of them did 
heroic work may be gathered from the latter part of 
this book, and the following incident will form an 
instance. 

I used to know a good old priest, born in Ireland 
and long since dead, who labored in and near 
Birmingham for many years from the time of the 
famine. 

When his friends used on occasion to chaff him, 
his reply was, ‘‘None of you ever had a cardinal for 
a curate!” When the priest in question was settled 
‘in a part of the Black Country thickly populated 
with working-class people, cholera broke out and 
made fearful ravages in the narrow lanes and 


70 WHO’S WHO OF 


crowded, ill-ventilated houses. Help was called 
for, and Newman—not of course then, nor for 
many years after, a cardinal—and Ambrose St. 
John volunteered and were allotted to this parish, 
thus becoming for a time the curates of this good 
man. ‘That was not all that the Movement did. 
It advertised the Church and let people know that 
there was such a thing and it set them thinking about 
it. What it is now need not be described; what it 
was then let Newman tell us, and his words shall 
conclude this sketch of the Movement of which he 
was the leader. The passage is from the sermon 
already alluded to entitled “The Second Spring”: 


No longer the Catholic Church in the country; nay, no 
longer, I may say, a Catholic community; but a few adher- 
ents of the Old Religion, moving silently and sorrowfully 
about, as memorials of what had been. 

“The Roman Catholics”; not a sect, not even an interest, 
as men conceived of it,—not a body, however small, repre- 
sentative of the Great Communion abroad,—but a mere 
handful of individuals, who might be counted, like the peb- 
bles and detritus of the great deluge, and who, forsooth, 
merely happened to retain a creed which, in its day indeed, 
was the profession of a Church. Here a set of poor Irish- 
men, coming and going at harvest-time, or a colony of them 
lodged in a miserable quarter of the vast metropolis. ‘There, 
perhaps an elderly person, seen walking in the streets, grave 
and solitary, and strange, though noble in bearing, and said 
to be of good family, and a “Roman Catholic.” An old- 
fashioned house of gloomy appearance, closed in with high 
walls, with an iron gate, and yews, and the report attaching 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 71 


to it that ““Roman Catholics” lived there; but who they were 
or what they did, or what was meant by calling them Roman 
Catholics, no one could tell; though it had an unpleasant 
sound, and told of form and superstition. And then, per- 
haps, as we went to and fro, looking with a boy’s curious 
eyes through the great city, we might come to-day upon 
some Moravian chapel, or Quaker’s meeting-house, and to- 
morrow on a chapel of the “Roman Catholics”: but nothing 
was to be gathered from it except that there were lights 
burning there, and some boys in white swinging censers; 
and what it all meant could only be learned from books, 
from Protestant Histories and Sermons; and they did not 
report well of the “Roman Catholics” but, on the contrary, 
deposed that they had once had power and had abused it. 


Then, referring to the recent restoration of the 
Hierarchy and summing up the changes that might 
be expected to take place,—in the wake of the 
Movement, though he does not allude to it,—he con- 
tinues: 


A second temple rises on the ruins of the old. Canter- 
bury has gone its way, and York is gone, and Winchester 
is gone. It was sore to part with them. We clung to the 
vision of past greatness, and would not believe it could come 
to naught; but the Church in England has died, and the 
Church lives again. Westminster and Nottingham, Bev- 
erley and Hexham, Northampton and Shrewsbury, if the 
world lasts, shall be names as musical to the ear, as stirring 
to the heart, as the glories we have lost; and Saints shall 
rise out of them, if God so will, and Doctors once again 
shall give the law to Israel, and Preachers call to penance 
and to justice, as at the beginning. 


Pee daly spa th kre a ; 
ae i ara Ny aid fs et kiss M om se i 


Ban ua 


a Ia ani (4 sie mh ache) ee 
| i whe et 
hainig's ‘ ei 
it oo by Vat nal Weg . i J 
iN ai ks 1a ar 
it, whe PANN rs 
inal er} iW ve : ty 
pa “Ni ey nee ay 


ae 


at e 
t 


re 19 int ok 


Wid. af 
‘ aise > 





PART II 


BRIEF BIOGRAPHIES OF THE PERSONS CONNECTED 
WITH THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 





ACTON, Sir JOHN, afterward Lord Acton. 1834- 
1902. Oscott and Munich. 


He was for a time Member of Parliament for 
County Carlow. He was made a peer by Glad- 
stone, who never failed in tenderness to refractory 
Catholics, as Acton then was. As editor of the 
“Rambler” when Newman retired from it in 1859, 
and afterward of the quarterly ‘““Home and Foreign 
Review,” he had given much offense. ‘The first of 
these was merged into the second, and that was 
finally closured. Acton was greatly embittered 
against the church by the decree in favor of papal 
infallibility, against which he worked with Dollinger, 
but never actually left the church, as the last-named 
did, and died after receiving all the sacraments. He 
was a man of immense reading and prodigious 
memory, and was made Regius professor of mod- 
ern history at Cambridge by Lord Rosebery. 
Lord Acton’s letters to Mrs. Drew. 1904. Lord 
Acton and His Circle, by Cardinal Gasquet. 
1906. 


Se 


75 


76 WHO'S WHO OF 


ALLiEs, THomMAs WILLIAM. 1813-1903. Eton, 
and Wadham College, Oxford. M.A., 
One. 


Took Anglican orders in 1838, and was rector 
of Launton and examining chaplain to Bishop 
Blomfield (q. v.). In 1849, he published his ‘“‘Jour- 
nal in France,” in which he said that for the Church 
of England to be reunited to Rome would be “an 
incalculable blessing.” For this he was sharply 
admonished by Bishop Wilberforce, at whose de- 
mand Allies made a declaration (which was circu- 
lated by the bishop among his clergy) that ‘“‘he 
adhered to the articles of the church in their plain, 
literal, and grammatical sense,’ and gave a promise 
that he would not publish a second edition of his 
book. (“Life of Wilberforce,” p. 181).1 Later 
in the year his bishop again pulled him up on account 
of a letter (August 27) to the ‘“Tablet” in which he 
expressed his concurrence with the doctrine of the 
Real Presence. On September 3rd he resigned his 
living. Next year his wife became a Catholic in 
May, he himself in September, going out into 
the wilderness with a wife and three sons, as is told 
in his book, “‘A Life’s Decision.” 

He was subsequently professor of the philosophy 
of history with Newman at the Catholic University, 
and for many years secretary to the Poor School 


1 References here and elsewhere to this work are to the American 
edition. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT V7 


Committee and the Catholic Union. A man of wide 
knowledge, he was the writer of numerous books 
during the fifty-three years of his Catholic life. 


ae 


ANSTICE, JosEPH. 1799-1836. Christ Church, 
Oxford. 


Professor of classical literature, King’s College, 
London. A man closely associated with Newman, 
who remarks on the fact that Menzies Cq-uiva). 
Froude (q. v.), and Anstice, all close friends of his, 
died on consecutive days. Anstice lived and died 
a member of the Church of England. 


ARNOLD, THOMAS. 179 5-1842. Winchester; 
Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Fellow of 
Oriel, 1875. 


Head-master of Rugby, 1828. Regius profes- 
sort of modern history at Oxford, 1841. 

That Arnold secured the devotion of his pupils, 
no one who has read ‘““Tom Brown’s School-Days”’ 
can doubt; and many of them came up to Oxford as 


78 WHO'S WHO OF 


apostles of his views, which were diametrically op- 
posed to those of the founders of the Movement. 
Both they and he were alarmed at the prospects of 


religion in England, but Arnold’s remedy was an ~ 


inclusive church in which all but infidels and Jews 
might find a place. He had not reached the level 
of inclusiveness sarcastically depicted by Fr. Ronald 
Knox (in his Anglican days) in ‘Reunion All 
Round.” The Movement prescription was very 
different from this. It is a curious fact that when 
Arnold had to “dispute” for his degree of B.D., 
he could find no disputant, as luck would have it, 
until Newman volunteered out of kindness. After- 
ward, when Newman would have been obliged to 
dispute for his own degree before Hampden, which 
would have been a very disagreeable experience, his 
act of kindness was rewarded, since a second dis- 
putation was unnecessary. 

Arnold was the author of the venomous article on 
“The Oxford Malignants,” which appeared in the 
“Edinburgh Review,” though the editor was solely 
responsible for the title, says the author of the ‘‘Life 
of Arnold” (i. 159). 

‘When Arnold discharged his torrent of abuses 
at Newman and his friends, the worst thing he had 
to say of them was that they were nobodies at Ox- 
ford, almost unknown there, not in society, hardly, 
indeed, admissible, so he insinuated. Arnold at 
that time knew no more of Oxford than he did of 
Italy, when, upon finding himself in Genoa, he wrote 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 79 


down, ‘I am now in the land of cowards, rogues, 
charlatans, liars, and impostors,’ or words to 
that effect. He had hardly put his foot in Ox- 
ford for many years. He must therefore have de- 
rived his estimate of persons and things from his 
own contemporaries—that is, a comparatively small 
body of elder residents. . . . Arnold took their 
word for it, and tried to crush the movement with 
social contempt. Unhappily, the most distinguished 
of his pupils believed themselves justified in saying 
everything he had said, and they described Newman 
as an unknown person at Oxford, seen in the pulpit 
once a week, never at any other time, and having 
nothing to do with the world, that is, ‘society.’ In 
a certain sense, it may be said that the apostles and 
the fathers of the first three centuries were not in 
society, socially unknown, and insignificant. In 
that sense, the studiously contemptuous expressiors 
of Arnold and some of his pupils may be true.” 
(T. Mozley, “Reminiscences,” i. 394.) 

Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, by 
Dean Stanley. 12th edition, 188r. 


oe 


ARNOLD, THomMas, JR. 1823-1900. Winchester, 
Rugby, and University College, Oxford. 


Son of Thomas Arnold, head-master of Rugby, 
(q..v.), brother of Matthew, and father of Mrs. 


80 WHO'S WHO OF 


Humphry Ward, whose novels enjoyed considerable 
popularity. He became a Catholic and was nom- 
inated by Newman as professor of literature in the 
Catholic University. Cardinal Cullen, who had 
made great objection, but in the end yielded, to the 
respective appointments of Stewart and Ornsby 
(q. v.), on the ground of their being Englishmen, ut- 
terly refused to swallow Arnold, and the appoint- 
ment was never ratified. Subsequently, Newman 
wished to engage him as second master at the open- 
ing of the Oratory School, but met with a refusal. 
Later, however, after the crisis in that school which 
led to the resignation of the staff, Arnold became 
principal classical master. 

He left the church after the utterances of Pius 
IX on liberalism, but returned to it and died a 
Catholic. 


oe 


BADELEY, Epwarp LovutuH. 1808-1868. B.A., 
Brasenose College, Oxford, 1823. 


He was known in Oxford as “‘the stormy petrel,”’ 
since his appearances in the university city always 
boded troubles in the religious world. Called to 
the bar in 1841, he was counsel for the bishop of 
Exeter in the Gorham Case, after which decision he 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 81 


became a Catholic, and in 1865 wrote what is de- 
scribed as a very able pamphlet on the privileges 
of the seal of confession, entitled, “The Privilege of 
Religious Confessions in English Courts of Justices: 
Badeley was the friend of Newman, “a man about 
my own age, who lives out of the world of religious 
controversy and contemporary literature and whose 
intellectual habits especially qualify him for taking 
a clear and impartial view of the force of words” 
(Newman’s “Letters and Correspondence,” p. 68), 
whom Newman consulted on the adequacy of what 
Charles Kingsley put forward as an apology for his 
statements as to Newman’s want of veracity. “If 
he had ruled Kingsley’s amende satisfactory, the 
‘Apologia,’ in all probability, would never have been 
written.” Ee was one of Newman’s counsel in the 


Achilli Case. 
ae 


BaGoT, RIcHARD. 1782-1854. Rugby, and Christ 
Church, Oxford. 


Dean of Canterbury from 1827—29, he was made 
bishop of Oxford in the latter year, and thus later 
was brought unwillingly into contact with the Ox- 
ford Movement, in connection with which his name 
often appears in the records of the period. He was 
probably glad to escape to the quieter scenes of 


82 WHO'S WHO OF 


country life as bishop of Bath and Wells, a see to 
which he was appointed in 1845. 


ae 


BELLASIS, EDWARD. 1800-1873. 


Serjeant-at-law, 1844. Like his friend Hope- 
Scott, to whom, by-the-way, he was godfather at his 
confirmation, the serjeant had a very large par- 
liamentary practice, much of it concerned with 
railway bills. His first wife died in 1832. He 
married again, and his second wife became a Catho- 
lic shortly after his conversion, which took place in 
1850. He had ten children, of whom three be- 
came nuns, and two, priests, one of them having 
been provost of the Birmingham Oratory, at the 
school of which he had years before been the first 
boy to arrive after its foundation. 

Memorials of his father’s life were written by 
another son, who was Lancaster herald. ‘‘He was 
one of the best men I ever knew,’ Newman wrote; 
and in another place he says, “Let the serjeant 
preach to you by his own happy and cheerful de- 
portment, for in my experience no one is his equal 
in this respect, of those I have known, except 
my own dearest friend, John Bowden, long ago 
taken away.” (“Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bel- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 83 


lasis,’ by Edward Bellasis, 1895.) It was to Bel- 
lasis that ““The Grammar of Assent” was dedicated 
“in remembrance of a long, equable, sunny friend- 
ship, in gratitude for continual kindnesses shown to 
me, for an unwearied zeal in my behalf, for a trust 
in me which has never wavered, and a prompt, 
effectual succor and support in times of special © 
peril.” 


ae 


BENNETT, WILLIAM JoHN Earty. 1804-1886. 
Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 


He entered Anglican orders, and in 1840, being 
then minister of Portman Chapel, Mayfair, was 
appointed by Bishop Blomfield to be the first in- 
cumbent of St. Paul’s Church, Knightsbridge, the 
first stone of which was laid in that year. The 
church was opened in 1843, and it is interesting 
to note that an oak lectern carved to represent an 
eagle was ordered to be removed by Blomfield as 
popish, a singular instance of ignorance on the part 
of that prelate. Bennett erected the district church 
of St. Barnabas, where a high ritual was the cus- 
tom. It was of this church that the Hon. Robert 
Liddell was incumbent when a prosecution was 
undertaken against him for the use of illegal orna- 


84 WHO’S WHO OF 


ments. The Church Association (founded in 1865) 
proceeded against Mr. Bennett in 1870 (Sheppard 
vs. Bennett) for certain pronouncements of his 
concerning the eucharist. Sir Robert Phillimore, 
dean of the Court of Arches, found in Mr. Bennett’s 
favor. The Association appealed to the Privy 
Council, which affirmed the finding of the lower 
court. During the riots after the restoration of the 
Catholic Hierarchy and Lord John Russell’s well- 
known letter, a mob entered St. Barnabas Church 
and would, but for Mr. Bennett’s sermon, have 
wrecked it. In the following year, Mr. Bennett 
was made vicar of Frome, in Somerset, a position 
which he occupied until the end of his life. 


a 


BERNARD, MOouNTAGUE. 1820-1882. Trinity 
College, Oxford. 


He was a close friend of Lord Blachford, and 
many references to a continental tour which they 
took together are to be found in the letters of the 
latter. They were associated with others in the 
foundation of the “Guardian” newspaper. Mr. 
Bernard, who was the first professor of interna- 
tional law in the University of Oxford, was, with 
Lord Ripon and others, a member of the English 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 85 


commission for the Treaty of Washington. He re- 
mained an Anglican all his life. 


oe 


Birks, Henry. ?-1864. M.A. St. Catherine's 
College, Cambridge. 


Writing from Oscott under date of 1845 (noth- 
ing further), Wiseman, then rector of that college 
(Wiseman’s “Life,” i. 442), mentions the reception 
into the church of a number of persons, and con- 
tinues: ‘“There was another clergyman with them, 
the Rey. Mr. Birks; but he had not come prepared 
for the decisive step, and shrank from so suddenly 
making his profession of faith. He returned to a 
friend’s house (at Birmingham), but felt so misera- 
ble that he came back next day and was received 
yesterday.” Mr. Birks remained at Oscott from 
1846 to 1847, and was ordained priest in 1849. 


a0 


BLACHFORD, LoRD FREDERICK RoceERs. 1811 
1889. Eton, and Oriel College, Oxford. 


The eldest son of Sir Frederick Rogers, he suc- 
ceeded his father as eighth baronet in 1851. He 


86 WHO’S WHO OF 


had a brilliant university career, becoming a fellow 
in 1853. He was a pupil of Newman’s and, in his 
fourth year at Oxford, was the only pupil left to 
him. As the correspondences of the period testify, 
they always remained firm friends. ‘Thus he was 
much associated with the Movement, but never 
joined the Catholic Church, remaining a firm and 
devout Anglican to the end of his life. He became 
permanent under-secretary to the colonies, and, on 
his retirement from that position, was created Lord 
Blachford. He was associated with J. Mozley, 
Thomas Haddon, R. W. Church, and Mountague 
Bernard in founding ‘The Guardian.” Letters of 
Lord Blachford, Church. 


a9 


BLENCOWE, Epwarp. 1805-1843. Charterhouse, 
Wadham and Oriel Colleges, Oxford, after- 
ward fellow of Oriel. 


He took Anglican orders, married, and was 
curate of Tevershall, Nottinghamshire, until his 
death at the age of thirty-eight. He was an early 
adherent of the Movement and a member of the 
committee of the “Friends of the Church.” Ina 
letter to IT. Mozley, alluding to an objection to 
Blencowe ‘‘on the ground of his unsound religious 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 87 


principles,” Newman says, “Blencowe was a mild, 
amiable Evangelical.” (‘Letters and Correspond- 
ence,” il. 140.) 


oe 


BLOMFIELD, CHARLES JAMES. 1786-1857. Trin- 
ity College, Cambridge, of which he was a 
fellow. 


He took Anglican orders and was successively 
archdeacon of Colchester, 1822, bishop of Chester, 
1824, and of London, 1828. In the last-named 
capacity he was frequently brought into contact 
with those concerned in the Movement, and indeed 
into conflict with some. Hence his appearance 
here. 


BLoxaM, JOHN Rouse. 1807-1891. Fellow of 
Magdalen College, Oxford, 1856. 


He was curate to Newman in the years 1837-40, 
having charge of Littlemore, where a new chapel 
of ease had been built. During this time, he hap- 
pened to stay with the Earl of Shrewsbury, and 
attended Mass in his private chapel. The incident 


88 WHO'S WHO OF 


was reported to Newman by Dodsworth (q. v.), 
who regarded it of sufficient importance not only to 
write to Bloxam about it, but to acquaint the bishop 
of Oxford with the facts of the case. Bloxam set- 
tled down into a steady Anglican after having been 
somewhat of an extremist, while Dodsworth became 
a Catholic after the Gorham judgment. ‘The whole 
episode is a curious example of the temper of the 
time. Bloxam was a man skilled in architecture, 
of deep archeological knowledge, and Pugin’s most 
intimate friend, “the father or grandfather of all 
ritualistics,’’ wrote Lord Blachford. 

Since both of them were devoted to the subject 
of church architecture, it may be as well to mention 
that Matthew Holbeach Bloxam, a Rugby solicitor 
and author of the well-known “Principles of Gothic 
Ecclesiastical Architecture’? and other works, was 
an entirely different person. 


ae 


BowvDENn, JOHN WILLIAM. 1799-1844. Oriel 
College, Oxford. 


Newman and Bowden came into contact shortly 
after both of them had joined the university, and 
rapidly formed a firm friendship, being ‘‘recognized 
in college as inseparables,” and writing a poem to- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 89 


gether on the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Both 
were born on the same day of the same month, 
though Bowden was the senior. He was an early 
writer for the “Tracts,” and, at Newman’s sug- 
gestion, wrote a life of Pope Gregory VII. He 
never became a Catholic, but a letter from Newman 
to Keble describes him in his last days as saying 
the breviary regularly, and continues: ‘He is my 
oldest friend. He was sent to call on me the day 
after I came into residence—he introduced me to 
college and university—he is the link between me 
and Oxford. I have ever known Oxford in him. 
In losing him, I seem to lose Oxford. We used to 
live in each other’s rooms as undergraduates, and 
men used to mistake our names and call us by each 
other’s. When he married, he used to make a 
similar mistake himself and call me Elizabeth, and 
her, Newman, (“Letters and Correspondence,” p. 
331, September 14, 1844). After leaving the uni- 
versity he became one of His Majesty’s commis- 
sioners of stamps and taxes, and died early of 
phthisis. 

It was over his coffin that Newman “sobbed bit- 
terly to think that he left me still dark as to what 
the way of truth was and what I ought to do in 
order to please God and fulfil His will.” (‘Letters 
and Correspondence,” ii. 392.) 


Se 


90 WHO'S WHO OF 


BowLes, FREDERICK. 1818—? B.A., Oriel. Col- 
lege, Oxford, 1842. 


He was with Newman at Littlemore and one of 
the first group at Maryvale. He became an 
Oratorian at Birmingham, but afterward left that 
body and was a secular priest at Harrow-on-the- 
Hill. I am informed that he lived to be a very 
old man, but cannot ascertain the date of his death. 
His sister, Miss Emily Bowles, was a convert, a 
correspondent of Newman’s, and, for a time, matron 
of the Oratory School. 


oe 


Bowyer, SiR GeEorGE, Baronet. 1811-1883. 
Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. 


He took up the practice of the law, and was 
created an honorary M.A. of Oxford, 1839, and 
D.C.L., 1843. He was reader of the Middle 
Temple in 1850, in which year, as a result of New- 
man’s lectures in King William Street, he became a 
Catholic. He was invited by Newman to deliver 
a special course of lectures in the Catholic Uni- 
versity and consented so to do, but it does not ap- 
pear that the project was ever carried out. His 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT gI 


name is one constantly mentioned in the correspond- 
ence of the period. 


ae 


BRAMSTON, JOHN. 1802-1889. Winchester, and 
Oriel College, Oxford. Fellow of Exeter 
College, Oxford. 


Vicar of Witham, Essex, for thirty years; after- 
ward dean of Winchester, 1872-1883. He was 
once described by Newman as ‘‘a mild evangelical,” 
and he was, according to the same writer, “con- 
verted (to the Movement)—i.e. is at present—by 
Keble’s sermon.” (‘Letters and Correspondence,” 
i. 398.) He was one of the members of the fort- 
nightly dining-club founded by Newman. 


oe 


BRIGHT, WILLIAM. 1824-1901. Rugby, and Uni- 
versity College, Oxford. 


He was canon of Christ Church, and from 1868 
to the time of his death, Regius professor of 
ecclesiastical history in the University of Oxford. 
A well-known hymn-writer, he was ejected from 


92 WHO'S WHO OF 


Trinity College, Glenalmond, in his earlier days 
for his adherence to Tractarian opinions. 


oe 


BuLLER, ANTHONY. ‘3809-1881. Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


He was to some extent associated with the Move- 
ment, for R. H. Froude writes to Newman: “Tony 
Buller was here (Dartington) yesterday. He is a 
capital fellow, and is anxious to assist us with trouble 
and money in any way he can” (Mozley, “Rem- 
iniscences,” ii. 121.). TT. Mozley says that he 
published four sermons on the constitution of the 
church and church authority, and that seems to have 
been the extent of his operations. He died at the 
age of seventy-one, having been rector of Tavy 
St. Mary, Devonshire, 1833-76. | 


oe 


BurDER, G. 1814-1881. M.A., Magdalen Col- 
lege, Oxford. 


A convert in 1846, he entered the novitiate of the 
Cistercian Monastery of Mount St. Bernard at 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 93 


Charnwood, in Leicestershire, which had been re- 
cently founded by De Lisle (gq. v.) and the Earl of 
Shrewsbury (q. v.), and while still a novice was 
allowed, being then supposed to be almost in arti- 
culo mortis, to take all the vows and to be clothed. 
To the surprise of all, he recovered completely and 
lived to be abbot of the monastery and, as conductor 
of an industrial school, to lead it into its very un- 
fortunate experiment. 


ae 


Burns, JAMES. 1808-1871. 


Born a Presbyterian, he was originally intended 
for the ministry of that body and studied for a time 
at a college in Glasgow. MHaving no vocation for 
that calling, he became an employee in the firm of 
Whitaker and Co., publishers, in London, in 1832, 
but soon set up in the same line for himself in 
Portman Street. He not only became an adherent 
of the Movement, but soon was recognized as the 
leading publisher of works connected with it. His 
series, “The Englishman’s Library” and “The Fire- 
side Library,” were of a high character, and his 
‘‘Eucharistica” shows the artistic taste which he ex- 
hibited in the production of his works. In 1847, 
being then thirty-nine years of age and having a wife 


94 WHO'S WHO OF 


and young family, he took the important step of 
joining the Catholic Church, thus bringing himself 
almost to ruin by the inevitable loss of his Anglican 
connection. It was at this time that Newman 
wrote “Loss and Gain” and published it with Burns, 
in order to assist him in his difficulties. ‘These were 
soon surmounted,-and taking into partnership a 
Mr. Lambert, the firm became known as Burns and 
Lambert. Mr. Wilfrid William Oates joined in 
1866, the name of the firm then becoming Burns, 
Oates and Lambert. Subsequently, and for a num- 
ber of years, it was known as Burns and Oates, and 
now continues, as Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 
to be looked upon as the chief Catholic publishing 
house in the British Empire. It is now honored 
by being publishers in England to the Holy See. 
Mrs. Burns after his death became an Ursuline 
nun, a step in which she was followed by four of 
her daughters. Another daughter became a Sister 
of Charity, and one son joined the Society of 
Jesus. 


oe 


BUTTERFIELD, WILLIAM. 1814-1890. 


The architect of the Anglican limb of the Move- 
ment, as Pugin was of the Catholic, and responsible 
for St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, his first important 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 95 


work, in 1845; All Saints, Margaret Street; St. 
Alban’s, Holborn; and Keble College, Oxford. 
Waterhouse, writing of him in the “Dictionary of 
National Biography,” alludes to “his scruples 
against working for the Roman Church and... 
the willingness to labor, if need be without reward, 
for the Church of England’’—convincing proofs of 
his intense conscientiousness and firm adherence to 
the Anglican body. 


oe 


CAPES, FREDERICK. 1816-1888. 


He was received into the Catholic Church in 1845, 
and, according to Newman, gave up £10,000 on so 
doing (see below). In 1848, he founded the 
“Rambler,” of which he was editor, and his brother 
was part proprietor. In connection with this, he 
was much in correspondence with Newman, whom 
he invited to become theological censor, but without 
success. W.G. Ward and Oakeley were among the 
contributors to this journal, also R. Simpson (q. v.), 
who afterward edited it. It was brilliant, but tact- 
less, inconsiderate, and offensive, especially to the 
old Catholics, and is a frequent subject of corre- 
spondence among the more prominent members of 
the Movement after their conversions. Capes left 


96 WHO’S WHO OF 


the church for some time, but returned, end died in 
full communion. 


0) 
# 


Capes, JOHN Moore. 1813-1889. M.d., Bal- 
liol College, Oxford. 


“A proctor in Doctors’ Commons has just been re- 
ceived and has given up £1200 a year or thereabouts. 
These two Capes have done together the greatest 
thing that has been done in.money matters” (New- 
man, “Life,” i. 109). 

It is very difficult to disentangle these two in the 
letters of the period, and I cannot feel sure which of 
them it was who, having written bitterly and untruly 
as to Newman’s attitude to the papal infallibility, 
called forth from him two scathing letters on the 
topic, one to the “Guardian,” the other to the ‘Pall 
Mall Gazette.” | 


oe 


CASWALL, EDwaRD. 1814-1878. Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and was for a time vicar 
of Stratford-sub-Castle, that being the proper name 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 97 


of what is much better known as Old Sarum, the 
original site of the cathedral of the diocese, and the 
home of the Sarum Rite, of which one used to hear 
so much, but familiar to recent history as the rotten- 
est of all the rotten boroughs abolished by the Re- 
form Act of 1832. T. Mozley narrates the story of 
his taking service there once for Caswall, when he 
met the one elector, who for forty years had re- 
turned two members to Parliament. 

Caswall, says I. Mozley, “was one of the quaint- 
est of men, but he was quaint after the manner 
of men. ... (He) had a vein of humor all his 
own. When an undergraduate, he wrote “The Art 
of Pluck.’ This humor he had to chastise, but 
it occasionally broke out, and might be detected 
even in his serious writings.’’ (‘‘Reminiscences,”’ 
ll. 12.) 

Caswell became a Catholic in 1847; his wife died 
two years later, and in 1850, he went with New- 
man to Birmingham, becoming an Oratorian. Dur- 
ing the remainder of his life he is best known as a 
hymn-writer; indeed, many of his hymns are known 
all over the world. He was the author of “Lyra 
Catholica,’”’ which contains translations of all the 
hymns in the missal and breviary, as well as others 
not belonging to either of these works. 


oe 


98 WHO'S WHO OF 


CHRISTIE, ALBANY JAMES. 1817-1891. M.A., 
King’s College, London; Queen’s College, 
Oxford, and fellow of Oriel College, Ox- 
ford. 


He was received into the Catholic Church in 1845, 
became a member of the Society of Jesus, and was 
the author of some religious dramas. Newman, 
in his “Letters,” speaks of him as “setting about 
notes on the portion between the Councils of Con- 
stantinople and Chalcedon, which will form two 
octavos” (‘Letters and Correspondence,” ii. 127), 
but I am not aware that this project was ever car- 
ried out. For a time superior of the seminary at 
Stonyhurst, he wrote a book called ‘““The End of 
Man,” and was virtually the editor of ‘Catholic 
Progress” throughout its existence, 1878-1881. 


oe 


CHRISTIE, JOHN FREDERICK. 1808-1869. 


The brother, I believe, of the last, who appears 
to have been for a time with Keble. ‘‘Christie is 
becoming, I hope, tolerably comfortable and tame 
at Hursley’ (‘‘Reminiscences,’ Mozley, ii. 9), 
writes Keble to Newman, November 15, 1835. 
After his reception into the Catholic Church he ap- 
pears to have entered the medical profession—a 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 99 


statement erroneously made of Albany James by 
Mozley. 


oe 


CHURCH, RICHARD WILLIAM. 1815-1890. Wad- 
ham College; fellow of Oriel College, Ox- 
ford. 1838. 


He entered college as a firm Evangelical. 
“There was such a moral beauty about Church 
that they could not help taking him,” (‘“Memoirs,” 
M. Pattison, p. 163), writes R. Michell, a man with 
no sympathy for the Tractarians, to M. Pattison, 
as the latter tells us. He is, in fact, almost the only 
man mentioned in the ‘Memoirs’ of whom its 
author does not speak slightingly, if not worse. 
The historian of the Movement, his association with 
all those concerned in it is so close that his name 
appears a thousand times in the correspondence of 
the period. 

He retired to an obscure living at Whatley, near 
Frome, in 1853, and was dug out from that to 
become dean of St. Paul’s, in 1871, to the great 
delight of all who knew what his gifts were. He 
had previously refused a canonry of Worcester, 
which was offered to him by Gladstone, and sub- 
sequently also refused the much greater promotion 
of the archbishopric of Canterbury, which was 
placed at his disposal after the death of Tait, 


100 WHO’S WHO OF 


so Lord Blachford says in a letter to Newman. 
After the central figure of the Movement, there 
is hardly any other, with the possible exception of 
Keble, who possesses for the reader the same at- 
traction. 
Letters of R. W. Church, Life and Letters, by 
his daughter, 1894. 


ee 


CHURTON, WILLIAM RALPH. 1799-1828. Fel- 
low of Oriel College, Oxford. 


He was a friend of Newman’s, and it was at a 
breakfast given by him that Newman first met 
Isaac Williams. Churton was for a time chap- 
lain to Howley, then bishop of London, but after- 
ward archbishop of Canterbury. He lived and 
died an Anglican. 


oe 


CHuRTON, THEODORE TOWNSON. 1799-? 


Tutor and vice-principal of Brasenose College, 
Oxford. He was one of the four tutors who de- 
nounced ‘“Tract go.” 


ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 101 


CLosE, Francis. 1797-1882. Merchant Tay- 
lor’s School, London, and St. John’s College, 
Cambridge. 


D. D., Cheltenham, 1824-56, and dean of Dur- 
ham, 1856-81. A note in the ‘Letters and 
Correspondence” of Newman (ii. 362) states that 
“Cheltenham was a sort of headquarters against 
the Movement and hard words were current.” 
What they were may be judged by the following 
utterance of the divine under consideration, a 
copious speaker and writer, who published seventy 
works in support of Evangelicalism and against 
theaters, horse-racing, tobacco, and other matters 
to which he was opposed. Speaking on the subject 
of Newman, he said: ‘When I first read ‘No. 90,’ 
I did not then know the author; but I said then, 
and I repeat here, not with any personal reference 
to the author, that I should be sorry to trust the 
author of that Tract with my purse.” 


aie 
CoFFIN, RoperT ASHTON. 1819-1885. Harrow, 


and Christ Church, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and was vicar of St. 
Mary’s, Oxford, 1843. He was received into the 
Catholic Church in 1845, at Prior Park, two 


102 WHO’S WHO OF 


months after Newman, who was present at his re- 
ception. First an Oratorian and superior of St. 
Wilfred’s, Cotton Hall, he subsequently joined the 
Redemptorists and was rector of their house at 
Clapham, 1855-65, then provincial until 1882, 
when he became third bishop of Southwark. 


oe 


Coope, Henry Georce. 1818-? M.A., Christ 
Church, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders, and was curate of Buck- 
nell. He was received into the Catholic Church 
in 1845. 


a 


COPELAND, WILLIAM JoHN. 1804-1885. Fellow 
of Trinity College, Oxford. 


He was one of Newman’s dearest friends and 
his curate at Littlemore, as well as the editor of 
the sermons of his Anglican period. He remained 
an Anglican and died as vicar of Farnham. He 
was a most intimate friend of Isaac Williams, who 
said of him that “he was better acquainted with 
our English divines than anybody I ever met 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 103 


with, more especially the non-jurors.” (“Auto- 
biography,” p. 79). 

‘At Oxford he lived, along with Isaac Williams, 
in the very heart of the Movement, which was the 
interest of his life; but he lived, self-forgetting or 
self-effacing, a wonderful mixture of tender and 
inexhaustible sympathy, and of quick and keen wit, 
which yet, somehow or other, in that time of ex- 
asperation and bitterness made him few enemies.”’ 
(Church, “The Oxford Movement,” p. 57). 

He wrote for the “Library of the Fathers,” and 
also contributed to the “Plain Sermons by Con- 
tributors to the Tracts for the Times,’’ though ac- 
tually he never was a contributor to the “Tracts.” 


ci 


COPLESTONE, EDWARD. 1776-1849. Fellow of 
Oriel College, Oxford, 1795. 


Professor of poetry, 1892; provost of Oriel Col- 
lege, 1814; dean of St. Paul’s, 1828. As the pre- 
ceding shows, Coplestone was provost of Oriel when 
Newman was elected fellow, and thus presided over 
probably the most brilliant group of men at that 
time in Oxford. Otherwise, he is forgotten, save 
by the few who prize his “Advice to a Young Re- 
viewer’ as a choice bit of ironic writing. Cople- 


104 WHO'S WHO OF 


stone was one of those who “charged most violently 
against us,’ says Newman, writing October 21, 
1841. 


one 


DALGAIRNS, JOHN DosREE (in religion, BERNARD). 
1818-1876. Exeter College, Oxford. 


He was one of the men who ‘“‘cut in at an angle,” 
as Newman put it. Even as an undergraduate, he 
had commenced a correspondence with Fr. Dominic, 
C.P., who afterward received him (and Newman) 
into the church. “A man whose very looks as- 
sured success in whatever he undertook, if only the 
inner heat, which seemed to burn through his eyes, 
could be well regulated.” (Mozley, ‘‘Reminis- 
CencessasiTiame 

He went to Littlemore with Newman and was 
received into the Catholic’ Church in 1845. He 
went to Rome with Newman, and was a novice in 
the newly established English Oratory at Santa 
Croce. During his life, he was connected with 
every house of the Oratorian body, having passed- 
from Santa Croce to Maryvale, and thence to St. 
Wilfrid’s, King William Street, London (1849), 
and Birmingham (1853), and Brompton (1856), 
where, after Faber’s death in 1863, he became 
Superior. 

He was a member of the Metaphysical Society, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 105 


which “died of too much love,” and Archbishop 
Thompson, of York, said that “he was more struck 
by the metaphysical ability of Fr. Dalgairns and 
Mr. James Martineau than of any of the other 
members.” Hutton, the editor of the “Spectator,” 
said of him that he was ‘‘a man of singular sweet- 
ness and openness of character, with something 
of a French type of playfulness of expression.” 
‘There was in him in his Oxford days a bright and 
frank briskness, a mixture of modesty and arch dar- 
ing, which gave him an almost boyish appearance; 
but beneath this boyish appearance, there was a 
subtle and powerful intellect, alive to the problems 
of religious philosophy, and impatient of any but 
the most thorough solution of them; while, on the 
other hand, the religious affections were part of 
his nature, and mind and will and heart yielded an 
unreserved and absolute obedience to the leading 
and guidance of faith.” (Church, “The Oxford 
Movement,” p. 306). 


oe 


DARNELL, NicnHoLtas. 1818-1892. Exeter Col- 
lege, 15836, fellow of New College, Oxford, 


18 37. 


Having entered the Catholic Church, he joined 
Newman and was one of the six novices who went 


106 WHO’S WHO OF 


with him from Maryvale to St. Wilfrid’s. He was 
called to the bar (Lincoln’s Inn) in 1847, and was 
the first head-master of the Oratory School, but re- 
signed, with all the other masters, owing to a dis- 
pute as to the position of the matron. 


oe 


De Liste, AMBROSE LISLE MaArcH PHILLIPPS. 
1809-1878. 


Brought up in the Church of England, as a boy 
of fourteen a visit to France interested him in the 
Catholic Church, and the first result was that, on 
his return, he induced the Anglican rector of his 
parish to place a small oak cross on the communion- 
table, with the result that its removal was promptly 
ordered by the then bishop of Peterborough. At 
the age of sixteen, being then a school-boy in Bir- 
mingham, he was received into the Catholic Church, 
though, on hearing of this, his father brought him 
home from school, prevented him for some years 
from following his religion, and insisted on his at- 
tending the Anglican Church. In 1826, he went 
up to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he made 
the acquaintance of Kenelm Digby (gq. v.), also a 
recent convert. Illness compelled De Lisle to go 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 107 


down without a degree. He was all his life a zeal- 
ous worker in the cause of the church, and it was 
largely to him that the conversion of Fr. Ignatius 
Spencer (q. v.) was due. “If England is converted, 
it will be as much due, under God, to you as to any 
one,’ Newman once wrote to him. He was the 
founder of the Cistercian Monastery of Mount St. 
Bernard, at Charnwood, Leicestershire, and of many 
churches; but the chief story of his life is his connec- 
tion with the movement for corporate re-union of 
the Anglican with the Catholic Church. In 1838, 
he, with G. Spencer, founded “The Association of 
Universal Prayer for the Conversion of England.” 
In 1844, he made a tour in Europe to secure ad- 
herents, and on his return played a large part in 
the Oxford Movement, for he was the only Catholic 
who was in confidential communication with the 
leaders. The ‘Association for Promoting the 
Unity of Christendom” was founded in 1857 by 
fourteen persons, of whom De Lisle was one, others 
being Lockhart (q.v.), F. G. Lee (q.v.), Fr. 
Collins, O. Cist., and a Greek-Russian priest. Its 
numbers rose to nine thousand, and included bishops 
and other dignitaries. Cardinal Manning secured 
its condemnation at Rome, in 1864, on the ground 
that it rested on the so-called “Branch Theory,” by 
which it is attempted to prove that the Roman, 
Greek, and Anglican bodies are all parts of the 
Catholic Church. As a loyal Catholic, De Lisle 


108 WHO’S WHO OF 


withdrew from the association, but his hopes were 
killed, and his work terminated. Life of Ambrose 
Phillipps de Lisle. 


a 


DENISON, GEORGE ANTHONY. 1805-1896. Eton; 
Christ Church, and fellow of Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


He was one of several distinguished brothers, 
for they included a speaker of the House of Com- 
mons (afterward Lord Ossington), a bishop of 
Salisbury, and a colonial governor. He took 
Anglican orders and became vicar of East Brent 
in Somerset, in 1843, where he remained for the 
rest of his life, becoming archdeacon of Taunton 
in 1851. 

Mozley, who pronounces his notes-of Oriel Col- 
lege as a “jumble of inaccuracies,” speaks of “his 
handsome figure, his pleasant smile, his musical 
voice, and his ever-ready wit” (Mozley, ‘‘Reminis- 
cences, 11. p. 93). 

In 1854, he preached three sermons on the Real 
Presence, with the avowed intention of challenging 
public inquiry, and that they were the more likely 
to do so was due to the fact that at that very time 
he was examining chaplain to Bagot, bishop of 
Bath and Wells, in which diocese his parish was 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT to9 


situated. He was tried in Bagot’s court, which 
ordered him to be deprived of his living. He ap- 
pealed to the Court of Arches, which reversed the 
judgment, but on the first point before them, which 
was one of law, viz: that more time than was per- 
mitted by law had intervened between the alleged 
offense and the action. Thus the second point, 
namely, the merits of the case, never came before 
this tribunal. 


Dr VERE, AUBREY THoMAsS. 1814-1902. Trin- 
ity College, Dublin. 


He was received into the church at Avignon, in 
1857. A poet and critic, he was professor of po- 
litical and social science in University College, 
Dublin, under Newman. Recollections, 1897. 


Wa) 
He 


De VERE, STEPHEN M. BARONET. 1812-1904. 


He was also a convert. Both of these, products 
of the Movement, though scarcely associated with 
it, were sons of Sir Aubrey de Vere, of County 


Ilo WHO'S WHO OF 


Limerick, Ireland, and of Mary Spring Rice, sister 
of the first Lord Monteagle and Brandon. 


oe 


DicBy, KENELM Henry. 1800-1880. Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Son of the dean (Anglican) of Clonfert, unlike 
his brothers who graduated in the University of 
Dublin, he pursued his studies at Cambridge, and 
early in his life, though not until after the publica- 
tion of his first work, became a Catholic. This 
book was the once well-known ‘Broad Stone of . 
Honour,” which was followed by “Mores Catho- 
lici,” a kind of medieval encyclopedia, originally 
published in eleven volumes. 

Though never actively connected with the Move- 
ment, he must be included, as deeply affected by the 
spirit of the time. 


oe 


DopsworTH, WILLIAM. 1798-1861. M.A., Trin- 
ity College, Cambridge. 


He was in Anglican orders, first at Margaret 
Street Chapel, then as curate at Christ Church, St. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT III 


Pancras. Of this church he subsequently became 
vicar, and it was during his tenure of this position 
that the first Anglican sisterhood was set up, in 
1845. He became a Catholic after the Gorham 
judgment in 1850, and, as a layman, was a writer 
on apologetics. (See also under Bloxam, John 
Rouse). 


oe 


Dominic, of the Mother of God. Domenico 
BARBERI. 1792-1849. 


Born of peasant stock, near Viterbo, he joined 
the Congregation of the Passion, became a priest, 
and, after twenty-eight years striving for that ob- 
ject, succeeded in establishing his congregation in 
England, at Aston Hall in Staffordshire. He is 
closely associated with the Movement, in that he 
received into the church so many of the converts, of 
whom Newman was the most important. Writing 
to Henry Wilberforce, October 7, 1845, Newman 
said: “Father Dominic, the Passionist, is passing 
this way, on his way from Aston in Staffordshire to 
Belgium, where a chapter of his order is to be held 
at this time. He is to come to Littlemore for the 
night as the guest of one of us whom he has ad- 
mitted at Ashton. He does not know of my in- 
tentions, but I shall ask of him admission into the 


I12 WHO’S WHO OF 


One True Fold of the Redeemer. . . . Father 
Dominic has had his thoughts turned to England 
from a youth, in a distinct and remarkable way. 
For thirty years he was expected to be sent to Eng- 
land, and, about three years since, he was sent, 
without any act of his own, by the superior.” 
‘From Oxford we drove in a chaise to Littlemore, 
where we arrived about eleven o’clock (at night 
and soaked with rain from five hours exposure). 
I immediately sat down near a fire to dry my 
clothes when Mr. Newman entered the room, and, 
throwing himself at my feet, asked my blessing, and 
begged me to hear his confession and receive him 
into the church.” (‘Life of Cardinal Newman,” 
1.92. See p. 94, note, for Fr. Dominic’s own ac- 
count of those received by him at this time.) Dal- 
gairns, Bowles, Stanton, and Mr. Woodmason, with 
his wife and two daughters, were received by him 
about the same time. 


ae 


DorNForD, JosEPH. 1794-1860. Wadham Col- 
lege, fellow first of Queen’s, then of Oriel 
College, Oxford. 


He enlisted in the Rifle Brigade at the age of 
seventeen, and served in the Peninsular War; took 
Anglican orders; became dean of his college, and 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 113 


was known to the students as “The Corporal.” 
He became rector of Plymtree, in Devonshire, and 
there continued until his death. ‘He devoured 
Newman’s works, as fast as they came out, and by 
and by ripened into what people in those days called 
a “Tractarian.’ His admiration of Newman be- 
came warmer and deeper every year.’ Newman 
used “to compare Dornford to Undine before she 
had the gift of a soul; a creature full of good in- 
stincts, tastes, and impulses, but in no form or 
whole.” (Mozley, ‘Reminiscences,’ ii. 55, where a 
very full account of this personage is given.) 


Vv 
2 


a) 


Doucias, Epwarp. 1819-1898. Christ Church, 
Oxford. 


A friend of Lockhart’s, he became a Catholic in 
1842, joined the Redemptorist order, and was rec- 
tor of St. Alfonso’s Church, at Rome, 1862-1894. 
He also held the offices of provincial of the Roman 
Province, 1851-63, and consultor-general, 1855— 
1894. He died in Rome, March 23, 1898, ‘“‘in the 
odor of sanctity,” and it is hoped that his cause may 
be introduced at some later date. 


ae 


114 WHO’S WHO OF 


DRANE, AuGusta THeopora. (Mother Francis 
Raphael, OS.D.) 1823-1894. 


While resident at Babbicomb, in 1837, she read 
many of the early ‘““Tracts,” though she maintained 
that it was the study of Burnett’s ‘History of the 
Reformation” which converted her. In 1847, be- 
coming very uneasy in her mind, she consulted both 
Keble and Pusey, but without any relief. Then she 
came into contact with Mr. Maskell (q. v.), at that 
time vicar of St. Mary’s Church, who told her of 
the third order of St. Dominic. She was received 
into the Catholic Church in 1850, and entered the 
Dominican convent at Clifton in 1852, being pro- 
fessed at Stone. She was provincial in 1881, and 
is well known as a copious writer. Bishop Ulla- 
thorne said of her that she was “‘one of those many- 
sided characters who can write a book, draw a pic- 
ture, rule an order, guide other souls, superintend a 
building, lay out grounds, or give wise and practical 
advice with equal facility and success.” 


ae 


EDEN, CHARLES Pace. 1807-1885. Fellow of 
Oriel College, Oxford, 1832. 


He was one of the writers of “Tracts for the 
Times,” and is described by Dean Burgon in his 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT II§ 
‘“Twelve Good Men” as “The Earnest Parish 


Priest.” He followed Newman as vicar of St. 
Mary’s, and held that position until Easter, 1850, 
when Charles Marriott succeeded him. He edited 
Andrewes’ “Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine’ for 


‘The Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.” 


oe 


ERRINGTON, GEORGE. 1804-1886. Educated at 
Oscott, where he was afterward prefect of 
studies. 


He was made first bishop of Plymouth, in 1851, 
and subsequently coadjutor to Cardinal Wiseman, 
cum jure successionis, in 1858, receiving the title of 
archbishop of Trebizond. Of his dispute with 
Manning, then provost of the Westminster Chap- 
ter, and his not very loyal dealings with his 
ecclesiastical superior, no more need be said than 
that, in the end, by Motu Proprio of Pius IX, he 
was removed from the succession and then retired 
to the chaplaincy of a hospital, and in the daily 
work of a priest led an exemplary and edifying 
life till his death. 


ci 


116 WHO'S WHO OF 


Estcourt, EpGar Epmunp. 1816-1884. M.A., 
Exeter College, Oxford. 


Writing to Ambrose St. John, November 22, 
1845, Newman says: ‘Estcourt is still in trouble. 
He is to be received about December 16.” (‘Life 
of J. H. Newman,” i, 103.) This is the man in 
question, and in 1845 he became a convert. Four 
years afterward he entered as a theological student 
at Oscott, and in 1852, he was ordained priest, in 
later years becoming canon and CEconomus of the 
diocese of Birmingham. These facts from the 
Oscott register show that the date in the note of 
1850 for his appointment to the canonry can hardly 
be correct. 

Canon Estcourt’s “‘Question of Anglican Orders 
Discussed,” though it has defects, remains an 
authoritative work on a question now closed, so far 
as Catholics are concerned, by the decision of the 


Holy See. 


Se 


FABER, FREDERICK WILLIAM. 1814-186 ede 
Shrewsbury, Harrow, Balliol College, fel- 
low of University College, Oxford, 1837. 


He took Anglican orders in 1837. In 1843, he 
became rector of Elton, Northamptonshire, where 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 117 


he established the practice of confession, but two 
years later was received into the Catholic Church. 
In the next year he established a brotherhood, called 
“The Brothers of the Will of God,” or “Wil- 
fridians,” from their house, St. Wilfrid’s, at Cotton 
Staffs, given them by the Earl of Shrewsbury (q. v.). 
Faber and his community of forty converted the 
entire parish, except ‘“‘the parson, the pew-opener, 
and two drunken men.”” When Newman returned 
from Rome and went to Maryvale, Faber and his 
entire community placed themselves as novices 
under him. In 1849, Newman sent him to London 
to found the Oratory there (first at King William 
Street, now at Brompton), at which he remained as 
superior until his death. It can hardly be necessary 
to do more than refer to his extraordinary position 
as preacher, writer, and poet during his Oratorian 
life. 

Life of Frederick William Faber, by J. E. Bow- 
den. Second edition, 1892. 


e 
FAUSSETT, GODFREY. 1781-1853. Corpus Christi 


College, Oxford. 


Margaret professor of divinity in the University 
of Oxford, 1827~1853. Canon of Christ Church. 
The protagonist of the anti-Tractarian party. “A 


118 WHO’S WHO OF 


matador of great courage and some skill . . . not 
a man of great learning . . . a scholar, a clever 
writer, and a telling preacher—that is, capable of 
striking hard blows.” (Mozley, ‘‘Reminiscences,”’ 
i. 440.) He preached and published in May, 1838, 
a sermon on the “Revival of Popery,” a bitter at- 
tack on Newman and his party, which was followed 
by a rejoinder from Newman. 


sy 


aS 


FLANIGAN, STANISLAUS. 


Well-known to many persons as for years the 
rector of the Catholic Church at Adare, in the 
County Limerick, this witty priest, whose dates I 
have been unable to learn, was born a Catholic and 
was an early novice at Maryvale when Newman and 
his companions took up their abode there. He 
never, however, became an Oratorian. 


FormBy, Henry. 1816-1884. Clitheroe, Char- 


terhouse, and Brasenose College, Oxford. 


Son of Henry Greenhalgh Formby, of Formby 
Hall, Lancashire. He took Anglican orders and 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 119 


was vicar of Ruardean, Gloucestershire. He fol- 
lowed the Movement very closely, and was received 
into the Catholic Church at Oscott, January 24, 
1846, being one of the first to go to Maryvale with 
Newman. Ordained priest September, 1847, he was 
stationed first at St. Chads, Birmingham, then at 
Wednesbury, and for the last twenty years of his 
life at the Dominican Priory at Hinckley, Leicester- 
shire. His great aim in life was to bring about a 
better knowledge of the Scriptures and the Catholic 
faith by publishing works profusely illustrated with 
instructive pictures. 


oe 


FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY. 1818-1894. West- 
minster School; Oriel College, fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford, 18 42. 


The youngest son of the archdeacon of Totnes 
and brother of Hurrell (q. v.) and William (q. v.), 
he was ordained a deacon in the Anglican Church, 
and was for a time under the influence of New- 
man; but turned away, as shown in his ‘“‘Nemesis of 
Faith” (1848), which work cost him not only his 
fellowship, but an educational post in Tasmania. 
It must be admitted that a duller book never was 
written, in spite of the effect it had on Froude’s 
destiny. In 1892, he succeeded Freeman as pro- 


120 WHO’S WHO OF 


fessor of modern history in Oxford, though, as a 
historian, it seems unlikely that he will ever occupy 
a position of much respect. He was Carlyle’s 
literary executor, and in that capacity came rather 
to bury than to praise. 

The somewhat fanciful and romantic views which 
he was apt to take about history, notoriously, per- 
haps, in his attempted whitewashing of Henry VIII, 
according to T. Mozley (ii. 33), also affect his 
statements as to his career in Oxford and his brief 
connection with the Newman party. Mozley, who 
knew him as himself a fellow while the other was 
an undergraduate, directly traverses his statements 
as to the pressure which was put upon him to join 
the Movement, and other misconceptions, as he 
calls them, though he comments with the astonish- 
ment that all must feel that Newman should have 
selected one so slightly bound to the Movement to 
write the life of so remarkable a saint as St. Neot. 


oe 


1S 


FROUDE, RICHARD HuRRELL. 1803-1836. Eton, 
and Oriel College, Oxford, fellow, 1827. 


Son of Archdeacon Froude, of Totnes. He was 
one of, the leading men in the Movement, a stimulus 
to others, though prevented by his constant ill- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 121 


health, which necessitated frequent sojourns abroad 
and finally terminated his career at an early age by 
phthisis, from that great and active share which 
he would undoubtedly otherwise have taken. Walk- 
ing in Trinity College Gardens with Isaac Williams 
(Williams, “Autobiography,” p. 63), he said: 
‘Isaac, we must make a row in the world. Why 
should we not? Only consider what the Peculiars 
(1. e., the Evangelicals) have done with a few half- 
truths to work upon! And with our principles, if 
we set resolutely to work, we can do the same.” 
It was the start of the ‘Tracts for the Times.” 
He was a pupil of Keble’s, and the two reacted 
strongly upon one another. It was he who brought 
Newman and Keble into intimacy, a fact which he 
remarked upon in a well-known passage. When 
close to death he said: “You know the story of 
the murderer who had done one good deed in his 
life. Well, if I was ever asked what good deed I 
had done, I should say I had brought Keble and 
Newman to understand one another.” The letters 
and memoirs of the day exhaust the language of 
friendship and admiration in speaking of Hurrell 
Froude. He ‘was a man, such as there are now 
and then, of whom it is impossible for those that 
have known them to speak without exceeding the 
bounds of common admiration and_ affection.” 
(Mozley, ‘‘Reminiscences,” i. 225.) 

“He was a man of the highest gifts, so truly 
many-sided that it would be presumptuous in me to 


122 WHO’S WHO OF 


attempt to describe him... the gentleness and 
tenderness of nature, the playfulness, the free, 
elastic force and graceful versatility of mind, and 
the patient, winning considerateness in discussion, 
which endeared him to those to whom he opened 
his heart,’ writes Newman (‘‘Apologia,” p. 84, 
where there is further matter ad hoc too lengthy 
for quotation here). ‘‘There was about him an 
awful reality of devoutness,” says Church; and 
others speak of “‘the enthusiasm which shone from 
his eagle eye,’ and of his “bright and beautiful 
personality.” There is an interesting reproduction 
which forms the frontispiece to this volume, of a 
sketch by Miss Giberne (q. v.) of Newman, Hurrell 
Froude, and T. Mozley in the Oriel Common Room. 

‘‘He was a man of great gifts, with much that 
was attractive and noble, but, joined with this, there 
was originality in his character, a vein of perversity 
and mischief, always in danger of breaking out and 
with which he kept up a long and painful struggle.” 
(Church, “The Oxford Movement,” p. 32.) 

‘He was considered a very odd fellow at college, 
but clever and original; Keble alone was able to 
appreciate and value him)’ (I. Williams, ‘‘Auto- 
biography,” p. 23). “A person most natural, but 
so original as to be unlike any one else, hiding depth 
of delicate thought in apparent extravagances”’ 
(Ibid, p. 83). 

‘When I was an undergraduate,” writes Lord 


Blachford, in a note to Church (‘“The Oxford 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 123 


Movement,” p. 52), “I first knew him in 1828, 
tall and very thin, with something of a stoop, with 
a large skull and forehead, but not a large face, 
delicate features and penetrating gray eyes, not 
exactly piercing, but bright with internal conceptions, 
and ready to assume an expression of amusement, 
careful attention, inquiry, or stern disgust, but with 
a basis of softness.”’ 

Froude’s ‘Remains’ were published after his 
death, with Newman as editor, and excited quite 
a storm from his outspoken verdicts on many points, 
such as admiration for the Church of Rome and 
hatred of the Reformers, as well as other matters 
mentioned by Newman. 

“He delighted in the notion of an hierarchical 
system, of sacerdotal power, and of full ecclesiastical 
liberty. He felt scorn of the maxim, ‘The Bible 
and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants’; 
and he gloried in accepting tradition as a main in- 
strument of religious teaching. He had a severe 
idea of the intrinsic excellence of Virginity; and he 
considered the Blessed Virgin its great pattern. 
He delighted in thinking of the Saints; he had a 
keen appreciation of the idea of sanctity, its pos- 
sibility and its heights; and he was more than in- 
clined to believe a large amount of miraculous in- 
terference as occurring in the early and middle ages. 
He embraced the principle of penance and mortifi- 
cation. He had a deep devotion to the Real Pres- 
ence, in which he had firm faith. He was power- 


124 WHO’S WHO OF 


fully drawn to the Medieval Church, but not to the 
Primitive. . . . He could not believe that I really 
held the Roman Church to be Antichristian’’ 
(‘‘Apologia,” p. 85). 

The question may be asked, as it has been, whether 
the remarkable man, here briefly sketched by his 
contemporaries, would, had he lived, have joined 
Newman or remained with Pusey. Isaac Wil- 
liams says (“‘Autobiography,” p. 84n), “I find that 
John Keble and others quite agree with me that 
there was that in Hurrell Froude that he could not 
have joined the Church of Rome.” The question 
is purely academic, but with the above quotation 
from the “Apologia” in front of us, it is at least 
permissible to suggest that if Newman had died 
at Froude’s age, the same prediction might have 
been made about him. Remains, ed. Newman 


and Keble, 1839. 
oe 


FROUDE, WILLIAM. 1810-1879. Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


Son of Archdeacon Froude of Taunton, Totnes, 
and brother of J. A. (q.v.) and Hurrell (q. v.), 
“William Froude gave his heart in with his brother’s 
work at Oriel, though his turn even then was for 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 125 


science, and his lot was eventually cast in railway 
engineering and naval construction. He was the 
chemist as well as the mechanist of the college. 
His rooms on the floor over Newman’s were easily 
distinguishable to visitors entering the college by 
the stains, of sulphuric acid, I think, extending from 
the window-sills to the ground.” (Mozley, “Remi- 
niscences,”’ ii. 14.) 

For a time the assistant of Brunel, the well-known 
railway engineer, his mind subsequently turned to 
the problem of naval architecture, in which subject 
he attained very high fame. His wife, often al- 
luded to in the correspondence of the time, became 
a Catholic, and so did a son, recently dead (1924), 
R. E. Froude, F.R.S., distinguished son of a dis- 
tinguished father, and in the same walk of science. 
William Froude, as a student a pupil of Newman’s, 
drifted far away from him in later days and never 
became a Catholic. 

“To you, my dear William, I dedicate these 
miscellaneous compositions, old and new, as to a 
true friend, dear to me in your own person and in 
your family, and in the special claim which your 
brother Hurrell has upon my memory,” is the com- 
mencement of a lengthy dedication of his “Essays, 
Critical and Historical” to William Froude by 
Newman. 


5 


126 WHO'S WHO OF 


GARBETT, J. 1802-1879. Fellow of Brasenose 
College, Oxford. 


At the time when his name came before the 
public, he was rector of Clayton, Sussex, subse- 
quently becoming an archdeacon. 

His name is remembered as the successful candi- 
date for the poetry professorship at Oxford, when 
Isaac Williams (q.v.) was his competitor. Wil- 
liams was associated with the Tractarian party and 
was a minor poet of some reputation. Garbett 
does not appear to have had any claims of the same 
character for the position, but was used by the Anti- 
Tractarians to cause a reverse for their opponents. 
In that they were successful, for a comparison of 
promises showing a majority for Garbett, Wil- 
liams withdrew. Mr. Garbett then published what 
seems to have been an inaugural lecture entitled, 
‘De Rei Poetice Idea,” which appears to have been 
his sole contribution to the subject which he repre- 
sented. 


ci 


GARSIDE, CHARLES BRIERLEY. 1818-1876. Man- 
chester School, and Brasenose College, Ox- 


ford. 


He took Anglican orders, 1842, and was curate 
at All Saints, Margaret Street, London. He be- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 127 


came a Catholic and subsequently a priest (1854), 
well known for his writings, especially his “Dis- 
courses on Some Parables of the New Testament.”’ 
He was a very intimate friend of Serjeant Bellasis. 
See Bellasis, ‘‘Life,” for references. 


oe 


GENTILI, ALoysius. 1801-1848. 


Born at Rome, he first tried to be a Jesuit, sub- 
sequently entering the Order of Charity and being 
ordained priest in 1830, always with the intention 
in his mind of serving the mission in England. He 
was invited to that country by Ambrose Phillipps de 
Lisle (q.v.), who had come to Rome as a young 
convert to seek for a priest to be chaplain and to 
whom Gentili had been introduced for that purpose. 
The reigning pontiff, Gregory XVI, actually boarded 
the ship on which they were sailing to give his bless- 
ing to the party—probably a unique incident in the 
history of the popes. Gentili was president of 
Prior Park under Bishop Baines for two years, but 
his main work is associated with Grace Dieu, in 
Leicestershire, close to Charnwood Abbey, founded 
by De Lisle, and with the giving of missions, at 
which he was unwearied, he and the other fathers, 
sitting, so it is recorded, in the confessionals until 


128 WHO’S WHO OF 


it was time to say Mass the next morning. It was 
Gentili who received Lockhart (q.v.), the first- 
fruits of the Movement. 


oe 


GIBERNE, Maria Rosina. ?-1885. 


An early friend of Newman and described by T. 
Mozley (‘‘Reminiscences,” ii. 42) as “the prima 
donna of the company,” i. e. of those concerned in 
the Movement. In its more restricted significance, 
the epithet is misleading, for it was in the direction 
of pictorial art that her talent was exercised, and 
there are in Mr. Ollard’s book interesting reproduc- 
tions of her sketches of members’‘of the group. She 
was one of the early converts, and for years lived 
in Rome, painting pictures for churches. During 
the Achilli trial, there was frequent mention of one 
Rosina Guiberti, who shepherded the numerous fe- 
male witnesses brought over to testify to the char- 
acter of that notorious person, or more rightly, to 
his total lack of character. This was Rosina 
Giberne under the name given her by her Italian 
friends. She ultimately became a nun, and died 
in the convent of the Order of the Visitation, in 
Autun. It may be added that she was sister-in- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 129 


law of the Rev. Walter Mayers (q.v.), a man 
whose name is to be met with here and there in the 
correspondence of the period. 


ae 


GLADSTONE, WILLIAM Ewarr, 1809-1898. Eton; 
Christ Church, Oxford. 


Gladstone, always close to the Movement, came 
specially to Oxford to vote against the degradation 
of Ward and the condemnation of ‘Tract 90.’ He 
was a close friend of Hope (q. v.), and Badeley 
(q. v.), and, after the Gorham judgment, was in 
appearance, though perhaps never in reality, very 
near to following their examples. The parting of 
the ways occurred in the little Anglican chapel in 
Buckingham Palace Road. Manning and Glad- 
stone were kneeling side by side. The time was 
coming for the commencement of the service of 
Holy Communion. Manning rose from his knees 
and said: “I can no longer communicate in the 
Church of England.” Placing his hand on Glad- 
stone’s shoulder, he said, ‘‘Come.” Gladstone re- 
mained; Manning went, and they never met again 
until one was prime minister and the other cardinal 
archbishop of Westminster. But Gladstone said 
that after Manning’s reception into the church he 


130 WHO'S WHO OF 


felt as if he had lost his two eyes. Life of W. E. 
Gladstone, by Lord Morley. 


SB 


GLENNIE, JOHN MeEtvin. 1816-1878. M.A., 
St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and was curate of St. 
Mark, Somerset. He was received into the Catho- 
lic Church in 1845 and ordained priest in 1851. 
He was first stationed at the Training College, at 
‘Hammersmith, and in the early sixties he was at 
Deptford. He was made a canon of Southwark 
in 1875, and died at Weybridge. 


a 


GOLIGHTLY, CHARLES PorTALIS. 1807-1885. 
Eton, and Oriel College, Oxford. 


He was debarred by private income from holding 
a fellowship. “One of the most interesting char- 
acters in the University of Oxford,” says Burgon 
(“Twelve Good Men,” p. xxiv). In a letter to 
Newman by Church, he is called ‘“Golias” and 
“Golly,” and Newman himself, in a letter to Hurrell 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 131 


Froude (‘Letters and Correspondence,” ii, 132), 
says, “Golius would not goliare or yodléew, i. e. be 
golius, unless he acted as he did.” ‘‘Golightly,” 
says Mozley (‘“‘Reminiscences,” ii. 109), “was the 
first human being to talk to me, directly.and plainly, 
for my soul’s good,” and that he was a man of genu- 
ine religion, no one can doubt. 

But his was a strange character. He had been at 
Rome, met many cardinals, had a tenderness for 
them, and, delighted at the discovery that his pri- 
vate house in Oxford had been known as “The Car- 
dinal’s Head,” had a cardinal’s hat painted over the 
lintel of his front door. At its initiation he was 
even a supporter of the Movement. Writing to 
Newman, August 22, 1833 (‘Letters and Corre- 
spondence,” i. 401), he says: “You might safely have 
assumed that I would most gladly join your society 
—what do you call it? Conservative Church Soci- 
ety—and urge others to do the same.’ And he 
was even of the inner circle. ‘Our Conciliabulum 
(Golightly, Marriott, etc.) meets next Monday,” 
Newman (Ibid). Yet, as Isaac Williams puts it 
(“Autobiography,” p. 100, note) he was “‘a curious 
instance of tergiversation——He was strongly with 
us, had taken a house in Oxford in which he said he 
should hide us when persecution arose; but he soon 
became our chief persecutor.”’ 

In fact, his role was that of the general denouncer. 
On the “Tract 90” question he was the protagonist. 
“People are taking it up very warmly, thanks, I be- 


132 WHO'S WHO OF 


lieve, entirely to Golightly” (Newman, ‘Letters and 
Correspondence,” il. 292, to Mrs. T. Mozley). 
“The letter to the ‘Times’ was signed by four 
senior tutors—Churton, B. N. C.; Wilson, St. 
John’s; Griffiths, Wadham; and Tait—gentlemen 
who had scarcely the happiness of each other’s ac- 
quaintance till Golly’s skill harnessed them together. 
He fought hard to get Eden, but failed; as also 
in his attempts on-Johnson (Queen’s) and Twiss 
and Mansell and Hussey (Christ Church),’’ writes 
Church to Rogers (‘“‘Letters and Correspondence,” 
ii. 295). In this matter, also, he was the instigator 
of the warden of Wadham, the chief actor in the 
Hebdomadal Council. 

In the W. G. Ward affair “Golightly is in the 
thick,” says J. B.. Mozley (‘‘Letters,” p. 161). 
When Jowett (q. v.) was made Regius professor of 
Greek, it was Golightly who denounced him to the 
vice-chancellor and demanded that he should be re- 
quired to sign the Thirty-nine Articles. Neither 
of these took much by their action. Jowett was 
summoned to sign by the vice-chancellor and pre- 
sented himself. The vice-chancellor commenced a 
stately oration on the subject, which was cut short by 
Jowett who exclaimed that he had come there to 
sign, and thereupon did sign and departed. It is 
curious to note that in this instance Golightly was 
associated with his ancient opponent Pusey. 

In 1857 he denounced Cuddesdon College, set up 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 133 


by Samuel Wilberforce, his main objection being to 
Liddon, its vice-principal, (q. v.). 

A letter to “The Guardian,” dated January 13, 
1886, and written by Dean Goulbourn, affords a 
possible key to his character. ‘‘Golightly sometimes 
lost himself in controversy”. . . and Re ‘Tract 
go”: “In bar of a harsh judgment upon certain 
things which he did and said in the heat of contro- 
versy, f may observe that I do not think he was quite 
himself at that period. It was to Dean Goulbourn 
that he said that he was apprehensive that ‘‘at some 
corner a party of Tractarians might be lying in wait 
for him, with a view of doing him some grievous 
bodily harm.” (‘Letters and Correspondence,” il. 
397, note.) 


ci 


Gorpon, JoHN JosePu. 1811-1853. Rugby, and 
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1833, B.A., 
Woh iy 


Cadet in the Indian Army, 1828, he was invalided 
home, 1831. Entering Anglican orders, he became 
curate to Dodsworth (q. v.) in 1842 and held that 
position until 1846. In 1847, he was received into 
the Catholic Church and joined the Birmingham 
Oratory in the next year. Newman dedicated the 


134 WHO’S WHO OF 


‘Dream of Gerontius” to him, and it was he who 
went to Italy to hunt up the witnesses for the Achilli 
trial. On the day after the application was made 
for a new trial in that cause, he fell ill and died, his 
being the first death among the English Oratorians. 


oe 


GoRDON, PHILIP. 1827-1900. 


Received into the Catholic Church in 1847, he be- 
came an Oratorian in the following year, was or- 
dained priest in 1851, and was superior of the 
London Oratory, 1868-71, 80-89, 92-95, 98— 
1900. 

In his ‘Lectures on the Present Position of Cath- 
olics in England” (‘‘Prejudice the Life of the Pro- 
testant View”), Newman gives an account by some 
ultra-Protestant of his visit to the service of benedic- 
tion at the Oratory in which it is stated: ‘‘ ‘The next 
part of the play was four priests coming to the altar’ 
(it is as I said, everything is a priest) ‘four priests 
and Gordon in the middle.’ This is a mistake, and 
an unwarrantable and rude use of the name of one 
of the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory, my dear 
brother and friend, the Reverend Philip Gordon— 
for it was not he, and he was not a priest.” Philip 
Gordon was not, in fact, a priest at the time that 
the lecture was written, though he was ordained at a 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 135 


later date. He was the brother of John Joseph 
Gordon. 


® 


GORHAM, GEORGE CORNELIUS. 1757-1857. Fel- 
low of Queens’ College, Cambridge. 


This gentleman was one of those obscure persons 
whom accident has given immortality, yet hundreds 
who have heard of the Gorham judgment have no 
kind of idea as to who he was. After holding his 
fellowship for seventeen years, he was nominated to 
the vicarage of Bampton Speke, in North Devon 
and in the diocese of Exeter. Henry Phillpotts 
(q. v.), who was then bishop, refused to institute 
him on the ground that he held heretical views on the 
question of baptismal regeneration. Gorham was a 
man, if not of muddled mind, very certainly’ of 
muddled expression, and some have doubted whether 
his writings really bear the significance attached to 
them. He appealed to the Court of Arches, which 
found for him, and on appeal, the privy council 
afirmed the judgment, thus deciding that so funda- 
mental a doctrine as that of baptismal regeneration 
might or might not be held by a beneficed clergyman 
of the Established Church, and hence was one which 
might or might not be true. It is a very remarkable 
fact that J. B. Mozley, a real thinker and a man of 


136 WHO'S WHO OF 


exceedingly clear mind, and moreover a sympathizer 
with the Movement, yet came out on Gorham’s side, 
not as a disbeliever himself in the doctrine impugned, 
but as one holding that its denial was not sufficient 
reason for the refusal of institution. Unquestion- 
ably, great importance was attached to this matter by 
the Evangelical party, and the editor of the “‘Rec- 
ord,” the staunch organ of that party, writing to 
Samuel Wilberforce in 1854, puts the matter from 
their point of view: ‘‘You firmly hold the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration; we as firmly believe that 
doctrine to be the tap-root of Popery, to constitute 
its very essence . . . we firmly believe that who- 
ever believes in that doctrine is a Papist in reality, 
whatever he be in name, and that the salvation of 
his soul is therefore jeopardised.” (‘‘Life,” 
American edition, p. 234.) 


oe 
GRANT, IGNATIUS. (dates not known). M.A., 


Oxford. 


He was an intimate friend of Lockhart, whom he 
preceded into the Catholic Church, becoming a con- 
vert in 1839. He subsequently became a father of 
the Society of Jesus. 


ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 137 


Grecory, RoBerRT. 1819-1911. Corpus Christi 
College, Oxford. 


Reading the ‘“Tracts for the Times,” so Ollard 
tells us, turned Gregory into a strong churchman 
and led to his abandoning for orders “what prom- 
ised to be a lucrative business.” ‘The last survivor 
of the first Tractarians, . . . his long life covered 
the whole period of the Movement, for he entered 
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1840; he was 
present at Mr. Newman’s last Anglican sermon at 
Littlemore, on September 27, 1843; he graduated 
B.A. and was ordained as curate to Thomas Keble 
later in the same year, and in that curacy Isaac 
Williams was his colleague. In 1868, he became 
canon of St. Paul’s, and dean in 1890, and until the 
day of his death he remained supremely loyal to the 
truths he had learned from the leaders of the Move- 
ment.” (Ollard, “A Short History of the Oxford 
Movement,” pp. 145-6). 


ae 


GRIFFITHS, JOHN. 1806-1885. M.A., Wadham 
College, Oxford. 


Sub-warden and tutor of his college, he was keeper 
of the archives of the university, and one of the 
four tutors who denounced “Tract go.” 


oe 


138 WHO'S WHO OF 


GUILLEMARD, Henry Peter. 1813-1857. Fel- 
low of Trinity College, Oxford. 


He was senior proctor of the university at the time 
that Ward was deprived of his degree and his book 
censured. It was he who in agreement with Church 
(q. v.), the junior proctor, stopped the censure on 
‘Tract go,’ then four years old, by interposing 
their veto, which was final. He was rector of Bar- 
ton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire, 1846-1857. 

He must not be confused with the following. 


ae 


GUILLEMARD, WILLIAM Henry. 17815-1887, 
Pembroke College, Cambridge. 


Vicar of St. Mary the Less, Cambridge, who in- 
troduced the Oxford Movement into the sister uni- 
versity. 


ae 


Happen, ARTHUR WEsT. 1816-1873. Fellow of 
Trinity College, Oxford. 


In Anglican orders and once curate of Newman at 
St. Mary’s, he was afterward rector of Barton-on- 
the-Heath, Warwickshire. He was collaborator 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 139 


with Stubbs in his “Councils,” and is spoken of by 
Mark Pattison as “‘one of the best representatives of 
the enlightened Tory and Anglican section.” 
(“Memoirs,” p. 246). 


ae 


HAMILTON, WALTER Kerr. 1808-1869. A Pu- 
pil of Arnold at Rugby, and afterward fel- 
low and tutor of Merton College, Oxford. 


In 1837, he was vicar of St. Peter’s, Oxford, and 
invited Archibald Campbell Tait (q. v.) to be his 
curate, an invitation which, however, came to 
nothing. He was examining chaplain to Bishop 
Denison, a brother of George Anthony Ca. ave), 
whom he succeeded as bishop of Salisbury (1854). 
His early sympathies were Evangelical, but he be- 
came and remained to the end of his days an ad- 
vanced Tractarian. 


oP 


Hamppen, RENN Dickinson. 1793-1868. Fel- 
low of Oriel College, Oxford. 


A brilliant student, he first emerges as the deliv- 
erer of the Bampton Lectures, “On the Scholastic 
Philosophy,” in 1832. Knowing nothing of the sub- 


140 WHO’S WHO OF 


ject, he was coached by Blanco White. Few atten- 
ded his lectures, and it may safely be said that few 
read them; but they were to cause a storm later. 
On the instance of Hawkins (q. v.), he was made 
principal of St. Mary’s Hall, in 1833, and next year 
professor of moral philosophy. In 1836, Lord 
Melbourne made him Regius professor of divinity, 
and then the storm broke, for his lectures were read 
and it was claimed* that they contained many pas- 
Sages contrary to the teachings of the Church of 
England. A protest made to Lord Melbourne pro- 
duced no eftect on that Victorian Gallio, and the only 
reply which Convocation could make was to deprive 
Hampden of his right to vote for the election of se- 
lect teachers, a proposal which was carried by a 
majority of 474-94. It was the moment of the 
zenith of the Tractarian party. The ground of the 
vote was the accusation that “he had so treated 
theological questions that, in this behalf, the Uni- 
versity had no confidence in him.” Subsequently, 
and as abundant opportunity arose, Hampden made 
himself a thorn in the side of the party of the Move- 
ment. In 1847, he was appointed to the see of 
Hereford, when a fresh storm broke out, in which 
the Evangelicals joined hands with the Puseyites. 
Characteristically enough, Samuel Wilberforce (q. 
v.) first denounced the appointment, and then, not 
only supported it, but prevented a prosecution for 
heresy. Tait (q. v.) as might be expected, also 
supported the appointment. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT I4I 


Apart from his unpopular views, Hampden was, 
according to I’. Mozley (‘‘Reminiscences,” i. 380), 
“one of the most unprepossessing of men. He was 
not so much repulsive, as unattractive. There was 
a certain stolidity about him that contrasted strongly 
with the bright, vivacious, and singularly lovable 
figures with whom the eyes of Oriel men were then 
familiarized. Even the less agreeable men had 
life, candor, and not a little humor. Hampden’s 
face was inexpressive, his head was set deep in his 
broad shoulders, and his voice was harsh and unmod- 
ulated. Some one said of him that he stood before 
you like a milestone and brayed at you like a jack- 
ass.” 


Memorials, by his daughter—1871. 


se 


q 


HIARDMAN, JOHN. 1812-1867. 


A scion of an old Catholic family which had 
never lost its faith, he was the father of John Hard- 
man, K.S.G., so well known to all Catholics of the 
English Midlands in the eighties of the last century 
and, therefore, the grandfather of the John Hard- 
man of to-day. What Pugin was, as the designer of 
the shells of the churches, Hardman was as the con- 
structor of all sorts of inside fittings and of stained 
glass, in the renaissance of which he was a pioneer. 


142 WHO’S WHO OF 


Pugin used to swoop down in his yacht on seaside 
spots in France and the Netherlands and cull frag- 
ments of ecclesiastical art, which he brought back to 
Hardman to incorporate in or copy for new build- 
ings, and many of these fragments are to-day in the 
museum at Oscott College. Hardman was for 
many years cantor in St. Chad’s Cathedral, Birming- 
ham, and it is to his labors and a judicious legacy 
that that church owes its eminent position in the 
world of strict ecclesiastical music. 


i 


HARRISON, BENJAMIN. 1808-18. Christ Church, 
Oxford. 


He had a brilliant university career, took Angli- 
can orders, and became archdeacon of Maidstone 
and canon of Canterbury. He was the writer of 
two of the “Tracts for the Times,” according to 
Dean Burgon. He also wrote on Hampden’s 
Bampton Lectures in “The British Magazine.” He 
and Hugh Rose (q. v.) were both chaplains to 
Archbishop Howley (gq. v.), and Rose was a fre- 
quent visitor to Harrison’s house on Clapham 
Common, 


ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 143 


Hawkins, Epwarp. 1789-1892. Fellow of 
Oriel College, Oxford. 


Oriel College, otherwise ‘“The House and Hall of 
St. Mary,” is the college, par excellence of the 
Movement, and Hawkins was its provost during 
that stirring period. Moreover, he owed his elec- 
tion to that post, over Keble, Newman’s particular 
friend, to the influence of none other than Newman 
himself, who perhaps thought Keble too bright and 
beautiful a creature for the rubs and strifes of ad- 
ministrative life, and perhaps he was right. At 
any rate, the election was the beginning of the end 
for Newman, for Hawkins dismissed him and two 
other tutors from their tutorship because they en- 
deavored to introduce a pastoral element into their 
relation with their pupils, and substituted for them 
three vastly inferior persons. Even Mark Pattison, 
no friend of Newman and the Movement, criticizing 
Hawkins’s administration, says, ‘“‘what is certain is 
that within five years of Hawkins’s election, Oriel 
showed signs of having begun to decline.” Yet 
Burgon—it is hard to see on what grounds—calls 
him “The Great Provost” in his “Twelve Good 
Men.” <A story told of him by Burgon seems to 
bring the man clearly before one. Burgon had been 
preaching in the college chapel on the walk to 
Emmaus, and had wrought himself up considerably 
over it, declaring that he “would rather have heard 
that discourse than any other mentioned in the gos- 


144 WHO’S WHO OF 


pels.” After what he thought to have been a some- 
what appealing oration, Burgon walked back to the 
college with Hawkins. A sympathetic word on the 
sermon would not have been felt amiss. “I notice 
that you always pronounce the word Emmaus, Mr. 
Burgon.” “Is it not Emmaus?’ ‘No, Emmius. 
Good morning!” 


ae 


HENEAGE, Henry PELHAM. 1810-1875. M.A. 


He is mentioned in Wiseman’s “Life” as an “‘ex- 
diplomatist.” He was the son of Thomas Fieschi 
Fieneage and his wife the Hon. Arabella Pelham, 
the latter becoming a Catholic in 1844. The date 
of the son’s reception is unknown to me; but in 1843, 
he was a priest and stationed at Oscott. During 
his time there, he is said to have opened a chapel at 
Erdington, the predecessor of the beautiful church 
afterward erected by Fr. Haigh. In 1852, he 
became chaplain to the Good Shepherd nuns at 
Hammersmith, and there he remained until his 


death. 


ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 145 


Hook, WALTER Farquanar. 1798-1875. Win- 
chester, and Christ Church, Oxford. 


He was the son of Hook, dean of Worcester, 
who was the elder brother of the well-known Theo- 
dore Hook. He entered Anglican orders and was 
vicar first of Coventry, then, in 1837, of Leeds. 
In 1838, he preached in the Chapel Royal, London, 
before Queen Victoria (then eighteen) his celebrated 
sermon on “Hear the Church,” at which the queen, 
at no time in her life overburdened by much sense 
of humor and perhaps least of all in those early days, 
was very angry. In 1841, he says that he was 
“bullied beyond anything by the Evangelicals of 
Leeds,’ so much so as to lose heart, and he had ac- 
tually made up his mind to resign the living, but 
the archbishop of York positively refused to allow 
him to do so. (“Letters of J. B. Mozley,” 
yay) 

In the end, the fruit of his labors was extraordi- 
nary, for while resident in Leeds, he was responsible 
for the erection of twenty-one new churches, twenty- 
three parsonages, and twenty-seven schools. He 
was made dean of Chichester in 1859, and was the 
author of the ‘Lives of the Archbishops of Can- 
terbury.”’ 


es 


/ 


146 WHO'S WHO OF 


Hope, JAMES, afterward WHope-Scotr. 1812— 
1873. Eton; Christ Church, fellow of Mer- 
ton College, Oxford. 


He was called to the bar in 1838, and soon se- 
cured an immense practice at the parliamentary bar. 
As an Anglican, he was chancellor of the diocese 
of Salisbury, a position to which he was appointed 
by his friend Edward Denison, then bishop, but 
formerly a fellow of Merton. ‘This office, which 
greatly pleased him, gave him a stall in the choir, 
the right to wear a surplice in the cathedral, and 
a processional place with the chapter, all of which 
rights he firmly insisted upon. He became a Catho- 
lic after the Gorham judgment, and, in 1852, con- 
ducted the case for the defendant in Achilli vs. 
Newman. It was he, too, who, all unknowing of 
what he was doing, brought about Newman’s ill- 
starred appointment to the rectorship of the Catholic 
University of Ireland. In 1847, he married Char- 
lotte, daughter of Lockhart, who had married 
Sophia, the daughter of Sir Walter Scott, and was 
his father-in-law’s biographer. Charlotte’s brother, 
Walter Lockhart Scott, died in 1853, leaving her 
the owner of Abbotsford. It was then that Hope 
took the additional name Scott. His first wife died 
in childbed, 1861. His second marriage was to the 
eldest daughter of the fourteenth Duke of Norfolk, 
who also died in childbed, leaving him with one 
son (now the Rt. Hon. James Fitzalan Hope). 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 147 


Hope-Scott never recovered from this blow, but died 
two years later. He was a man of profuse bene- 
factions and ‘“‘distinctly at the head of all his con- 
temporaries in the brightness and beauty of his 


gifts,” as described by a contemporary. 
Life, by Robert Ornsby, 1884. 


oe 


Howrey, WILLIAM. 1766-1848. Winchester, 
and New College, Oxford. 


He became archbishop of Canterbury, and in that 
capacity opposed Catholic emancipation, parliamen- 
ary reform, and Jewish relief. Sydney Smith fell 
foul of him, as would naturally be expected, and 
described him, with some other episcopal brother, 
as “the cock and hen of this species.” 


JAMEs, WILLIAM. 1787-1861. Fellow of Oriel 
College, Oxford. 


He was afterward rector of Bilton, near Rugby. 
As it was this clergyman who, in the course of walks 
in Christ Church Meadows, taught Newman 


148 WHO’S WHO OF 


(“Apologia,” p. 67) the doctrine of the apostolic 
succession, his name, though he does not seem to 
have had any other connection with the Movement, 
cannot be omitted. 


oe 


Jounson, ManueEt J. 1805-1859. F.R.S., 1856. 


He was a ward of Bowden, Newman’s chief 
friend, and was for twenty years Radcliffe observer, 
the Radcliffe being the name of the observatory in 
Oxford. Hence in the correspondence of the pe- 
riod, where his name often appears, he is usually 
mentioned as “Observer Johnson.” <A lay member 
of the Anglican body all his life, he married one of 
the twin daughters of the then Regius professor of 
medicine, the other becoming Mrs. J. B. Mozley. 
He was a close friend of all those concerned in the 
Oxford Movement, and obviously a man of great 
personal charm, for T. Mozley speaks of “‘his orig- 
inality, geniality, and humor, ever beaming, almost 
jovial countenance, his laughing eye, his ready wit.” 

J. B. Mozley (“Letters,” 241), writing of his 
death, says that it was “a tremendous blow to all 
one’s Oxford reminiscences, and makes everything 
quite different to look back upon. No one has been 
more completely identified with all that one has lived 
through for the last twenty years than Johnson.” 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 149 


“T slept,”’ writes Newman, of the last evening that 
he spent in Oxford, ‘‘on Sunday night at my dear 
friend Mr. Johnson’s at the Observatory.” © 


ae 


JowETT, BENJAMIN. 1817-1893. St. ‘Paul’s 
School, and Balliol College, Oxford, fellow 
and, in 1870, master of that college. 


From 1855 to his death, Regius professor of 
Greek in the university, he was known to the world 
by his translation of Plato and as the hero of a host. 
of stories (see ‘‘Golightly”). Huxley called him 
the ‘‘Disintegrator,” and, in fact, his breadth of 
religious view had no perceptible limits, as is indi- 
cated in the celebrated caricature of Jowett as Dr. 
Jenkinson, in Mallock’s ‘‘New Republic,” which 
made the Broad-church party so angry and caused 
Lord Houghton (then Monckton Milnes) to re- 
joice to Stanley that ‘even his breadth had a limit,” 
when Stanley refused to join a breakfast party at 
which Mallock was expected to be a guest. 

Jowett had his hour of attraction to the Move- 
ment in his earlier days and confesses that he had 
sometimes thought that, ‘‘but for the act of Prov- 
idence,’ as he puts it, he “might have become a 
Roman Catholic.”” Later in his life he did not con- 
ceal his contempt for it, as for other things with 


150 WHO’S WHO OF 


which he differed. “Of course’ (writes Dean 
Church, “Life and Letters,” p. 333), “I quite under- 
stand his disliking and despising the Movement 
as reactionary, unphilosophical, superstitious, and 
petty. But such statements as that the Tractarians 
were ignorant of literature and disparaged it throw 
doubts on his power of understanding things.” 

The dean then proceeds, as was say ne possible, 
to demolish this false notion. 


Life and Letters, edited by Abbot and Campbell. 
1897. 


ae 


KEBLE, JOHN. 1792-1866. Fellow of Oriel Col- 
lege, Oxford, 1811. 


Professor of poetry, Oxford, 1831. His father 
was vicar of Coln St. Aldwyit S) 2 charming spot 
in the Cotswold district, and ‘a good scholar 
and a good parish priest,” says Church (‘The Ox- 
ford Movement,” p. 61). Keble went up to Ox- 
ford at the age of fifteen, and at eighteen had taken 
a double-first-class degree and won the competitions 
for both the English and Latin essays, so that one 
need not wonder at his being made, before he was 
twenty-one years of age, a fellow of so distinguished 
a college as Oriel then was. 

After Newman, there is none of the period whose 
attraction is so great or whom one would more de- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 9s 1ts1 


sire to have known. He had one of the most 
beautifully formed heads in the world and a pair of 
most wonderful black eyes ... diamonds and 
pearls dropping from that mouth,’ (T. Mozley). 
This, by-the-way, was the man likened by Thomas 
Carlyle to a monkey. It was the same writer who 
said that Newman had the brains of a rabbit. 
Time has its revenges, and it is interesting to com- 
pare the positions of the three men to-day. 

Keble would have been provost of Oriel in 
Hawkins’s place, but for Newman; and here again, 
time had its ample revenge (cf. Hawkins). New- 
man, says Isaac Williams (‘‘Autobiography,” p. 
49), looked on Keble ‘‘as something one would put 
under a glass and put on one’s chimney-piece to ad- 
mire, but as too unworldly for business.’ In fact, 
Newman (‘Letters and Correspondence,” 1. 152) 
said that “if the place of an angel was vacant, he 
would think of Keble; but here it was necessary to 
appoint a provost.” Naturally, Newman’s action 
was from no want of respect for Keble, for that he 
had to the end of his days, though the bashfulness 
described in his first meeting had gone. When he 
was made fellow of Oriel and sent for to the 
Common Room, Newman relates that when ‘‘Keble 
advanced to take my hand . . . I could nearly have 
shrunk into the floor, ashamed of so great an honor.” 

Keble, like all true poets, yearned after the mot 
guste. I, Williams in his ‘“‘Autobiography”’ (p. 28) 
narrates how Keble turned on H. Froude with the 


162 WHO'S WHO OF 


remark: “Froude, you said one day that Law’s 
‘Serious Call’ was a ‘clever’ or ‘pretty’ book—I 
forget which. It seemed to me as if you said that 
the day of judgment would be a pretty sight.” As 
the poet of the Movement, no doubt he is most 
generally remembered, yet it is curious to note that, 
but for the poet’s father, “The Christian Year”? 
might never have appeared, for his own opinion of 
that book was low. “It will be still-born, I know 
very well; but it is only in obedience to my father’s 
wishes that I publish it, and that is some comfort.” 
(J. K. to I. Williams, “Autobiography,” p. 41.) 

As to what his friends thought of him, two 
passages may be quoted. Writing in 1847 on St. 
Philip Neri, Newman said: “This great saint re- 
minds me in so many ways of Keble that I can fancy 
how Keble would have been if God’s will had been 
that he should have been born in another place and 
age; he was formed on the same type of extreme 
hatred of humbug, playfulness, nay oddity, tender 
love for others, and serenity; which are lineaments 
of Keble.” (“Letters and Correspondence,” ii. p. 
424). 

Church writes (“The Oxford Movement,” p. 
61): “Mr. Keble had not many friends and was no 
party chief. He was a brilliant university scholar 
overlaying the plain, unworldly, country parson; an 
old-fashioned English churchman, with great venera- 
tion for the church and its bishops, and a great dis- 
like to Rome, dissent, and Methodism, but with a 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 153 


quick heart, with a frank, gay humility of soul, with 
a great contempt of appearances, great enjoyment 
of nature, great unselfishness, strict and severe prin- 
ciples of morals and duty.” 

Mr. Keble left Oxford for the vicarage of 
Hursley, a quiet spot where he remained till the 
end of his life. It was a somewhat singular and 
unexpected ending, though doubtless a very happy 
one, to a life which had commenced with such a 
blaze of academic distinction and for the man whose 
fate it was to set a light to the fires of the Oxford 
Movement, for, as Newman said, Keble’s sermon 
preached at the summer assize in Oxford in 1833 
on “National Apostasy” set that Movement going, 
and the day on which it was preached was ever after 
kept by Newman as the birthday of the era in which 
he was the greatest figure. 


# 


KEBLE, THOMAS. 1793-1875. Fellow of Corpus 
Christi College, Oxford. 


Brother of John Keble. ‘The Vicar of Bisley, a 
man of sterner type than his brother, with strong 
and definite opinions on all subjects; curt and keen 
in speech; intolerant of all that seemed to threaten 
wholesome teaching and the interests of the Church; 


154 WHO'S WHO OF 


and equally straightforward, equally simple in man- 
ner of life.” 

Isaac Williams began his clerical career as curate 
to Thomas Keble, and later on was urged by him to 
accept the curacy offered by Newman at St. Mary’s, 
in order that he “might have more of the society 
of such a man.” Isaac Williams greatly admired 
his sermons, and says that Newman’s first volume 
of published sermons was really Thomas Keble 
filtered through Isaac Williams. 

He was the author of one of the “Tracts for the 
Times” entitled, ‘Authorities for the Use of Daily 
Service,’ the facts for which had been collected as 
early as 1816, when he made up his mind that if 
ever he had a parish of his own, he would have daily 
prayer in his church. That resolve he carried out 
when appointed to Bisley in 1827. According to 
Isaac Williams (‘‘Autobiography,” p. 75), this was 
the beginning of the revival of daily service in parish 
churches. | 
Memoir, by Coleridge, 1859. 


oe 


KINGSLEY, CHARLES. 1819-1875. Magdalene 
College, Cambridge. 


He was professor of modern history in the Uni- 
versity of Cambridge, 1860, vicar of Eversleigh, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 155 


and canon of Westminster. A voluminous writer 
on many subjects, Kingsley’s connection with the 
Movement is entirely that of the felix culpa which 
elicited the ‘“‘Apologia.”’ 

The story is briefly this: Kingsley, reviewing 
Froude’s ‘History of England,” in ‘Macmillan’s 
Magazine” in January, 1864, made the obiter dictum 
that “Fr. Newman informs us that truth, on the 
whole, need not be looked upon as a virtue.” The 
review being over initials which were unrecognized 
by Newman, he wrote to ‘“Macmillan’s,” calling 
their attention to the statement, which he challenged. 
The letter was forwarded to Kingsley, and a cor- 
respondence ensued which was published (Longmans, 
1864) by Newman under the title, “Mr. Kingsley 
and Dr. Newman.”’ 

Kingsley made rapid reply in the same year with a 
further pamphlet entitled, “What Then Does Dr. 
Newman Mean?” (Macmillans.) The ‘Apologia 
Pro Vita Mea,” published in the same year (Long- 
mans), was the rejoinder, and a real tour de force, 
having regard to the time within which it was pro- 
duced. As far as the world went, that ended the 
matter; and a loving wife—to whom everything 
may be forgiven—-and the present successor of Dean 
Church at St. Paul’s seem to be the only people who 
have ever regarded Kingsley as the victor in the 
contest. (See sub voce ‘‘Newman’’). 


cig 


156 WHO’S WHO OF 
Knox, FRANCIS. 1822-1882. D.D., Cambridge. 


He was received into the Catholic Church by 
Bishop Wareing at Northampton with Faber, No- 
vember 17, 1845. He joined the Oratory of Mary- 
vale with Newman in 1848. In the following year 
he collaborated with Faber in the foundation of 
the London Oratory. ‘Afterward known as the 
learned editor of the Douay Diaries (‘Life of J. H. 
Newman,” i. 241), he was, in 1874, appointed 
notary of the local, court which sat at the Oratory to 
investigate the evidence for the English martyrs. 
He spent much of his time in preserving and mak- 
ing known the memorials of the English Catholics. 


oe 


LAPRIMAUDAYE, CHARLES JAMES. 1807-1858 (?). 
M.A., St. John’s College, Oxford. 


He was curate to Manning at Lavington. Re- 
ceived into the Catholic Church in 1850, he became, 
after his wife’s death, a priest and one of the oblates 
of St. Charles. Purcell is inaccurate in saying that 
he died of smallpox “while studying for the priest- 
hood at Rome.’ Manning said of him, “In losing 
Laprimaudaye, I seem to have lost a part of my- 
Selt 


oe 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT © 157 


LEE, FREDERICK GEORGE. 1832-1902. Oxford. 
D.C.L. 


He was, with De Lisle (q. v.), one of the found- 
ers of the Association for the Promoting of the 
Union of Christendom, and remained its chief sup- 
porter after Catholics had withdrawn under papal 
injunction. He was the chief figure in the Order of 
Corporate Reunion, the idea of which was to secure 
some validly consecrated bishops who would convey 
undoubted orders on those clergy of the Anglican 
communion who were willing to receive them. Ac- 
cordingly, Lee, a Dr. Mossman, and a third secured 
consecration, after receiving all the previous sacra- 
ments, from a schismatic bishop or bishops—it was 
said, on the high seas, so as to avoid any question of 
infringement of territory. Such was the tale, and 
it is certain that Dr. Lee figured as a bishop, and, 
indeed, seems to have been one, though there must 
always be doubt as to the number of persons who 
received orders at the hands of himself or of his 
colleagues. 

All Saints, Lambeth, where he was vicar, was 
during his tenure of the incumbency a center of 
ritual, and he himself was a copious writer on that 
subject, his ‘Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical 
Terms” being still a valuable book. He married 
a Miss Ostrehan, who, with their son, preceded him 
into the Catholic Church, to which he became a con- 
vert in his last days. By this marriage, he became 


158 WHO'S WHO OF 


connected with the Foudrinier family to which, on 
his mother’s side, Newman belonged. 


oe 


Lewis, Davip. 1815-2? Fellow of Jesus College, 
Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and was for a time 
curate at the church of St. Mary the Virgin, in 
Oxford. He became a Catholic in 1846. While 
at Oxford, it was resolved to confer an honorary 
degree on Mr. Everett, the then ambassador from 
the United States of America. Lewis, with “Jack” 
Morris (q. v.) and others, were highly indignant 
at this proposal, on the ground that the gentleman 
was avowedly a Unitarian, and they engineered an 
opposition to the degree, at the meeting of the 
Senate where it was to be conferred, which might 
have placed a great indignity upon an unoffending 
gentleman but for the artfulness of the vice- 
chancellor and the usual unruly conduct of the under- 
graduates, which brought their plans to naught. 
(See Church, ‘Life and Letters,” p. 40). 

Lewis was the translator of the “Life of St. 
Theresa,” of the ‘“Works of St. John of the Cross,” 
and collated the text of the “Pupila Oculi’” for J. 
R. Hope-Scott (q. v.), who intended to publish it, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 159 


but apparently never did so. The original was the 
work of John de Brugh, chancellor of the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge, circa 1385. Writing to Hope- 
Scott (“Memoirs of J. Hope-Scott,” ii. 100) to con- 
gratulate him on his conversion, Lewis says: “I 
may add that I owe in part my own conversion to 
conversations with you, which turned me to the 
course of reading the end of which I did not then 
suspect. It is, therefore, no small joy to me to 
see you in the same harbor of refuge.” 


ci 


Lippon, Henry Parry. 1829-1890. Christ 
Church, Oxford. 


He was vice-principal of Cuddesdon Theological 
College from 1854 to 1859, and in that capacity 
came under the denunciation of Golightly (q. v.). 
He was a canon of St. Paul’s, London, and a typical 
standard High-churchman of the cathedral stamp, 
considered in his time by many to be the most 
eloquent preacher in the Church of England. His 
‘Lectures on the Divinity of Christ” is a well-known 
work. 


oe 


160 WHO’S WHO OF 


Lioyp, CHARLES. 1784-1829. Eton, and Christ 
Church, Oxford. 


Canon of Christ Church and Regius professor 
of divinity in the University of Oxford, he became 
bishop of that see in 1827, dying in 1829. He 
belonged to what was known as the “High and Dry” 
school of theologians; but in contrast ‘to the per- . 
functory performance of duties, not uncommon with 
the professors of ‘that period, Lloyd, in addition to 
the public lectures which he was bound to give, 
started others of a private character in 1823, which 
were attended by Pusey and Newman. He held 
also a living at Ewelme, not far from Oxford, to 
which he used to invite Newman during vacations, 
and doubtless had his influence on the development 
of his views. 


a 


LockHarT, WILLIAM. 1820-1892. Exeter Col- 
lege, Oxford. 


He was a cousin of Lockhart, the biographer of 
Sir Walter Scott. At Littlemore with Newman 
as a student in preparation for Anglican orders, he 
there wrote a life of St. Gilbert of Sempringham. 
A perusal of Milner’s ‘End of Controversy’ caused 
him to drop the idea of entering Anglican orders 
and leave Littlemore. He was sent back by Ward 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 161 


and received by Newman under the circumstances 
detailed in his letter to the bishop of Oxford, dated 
August 29, 1843 (“Apologia,” p. 341). “It is with 
much concern that I inform your Lordship that Mr. 
A. B. (1.e. Lockhart), who has been for the last 
year an inmate of my house here, has just con- 
formed to the Church of Rome. ... I received 
him on condition of his promising me, which he 
distinctly did, that he would remain quietly in our 
Church for three years. A year has passed since 
that time,”’ etc. 

What had occurred was that Lockhart had met 
Fr, Gentili (q. v.) in Ward’s rooms, and had been 
to see him at Loughboro’, where he was then 
stationed, and there, in 1843, he was received into 
the Catholic Church. As a result of this, Newman 
resigned his living at St. Mary’s and preached his 
last sermon as an Anglican, that most poignant 
piece of tragedy, ‘The Parting of Friends.” It 
was at Littlemore and on the anniversary of the 
dedication of that church. Pusey celebrated the 
service of Holy Communion, and “could hardly 
help mingling sorrow even with that feast’? (Ollard, 
p. 87). Dean Gregory records that ‘‘after the 
sermon Newman descended from the pulpit, took 
off his hood, and threw it over the altar rails, and it 
was felt by those present that this was to mark 
that he had ceased to be a teacher in the Church of 
England” (Ibid, p. 88, note). Lockhart joined 
the Order of Charity, to which Gentili belonged, 


162 WHO’S WHO OF 


and was responsible himself for the purchase of 
their beautiful church of St. Etheldreda in Ely 
Place, London. He was for a time provincial of 
the order and well known as a copious writer. 


oe 


LoGaN, CHARLES FRANCIs HENRY. 1799-1884. 
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 


A convert, he was vice-president and professor 
of mathematics at Oscott during the presidency of 
Wiseman, becoming president in 1847, a position 
which he held for two years. 


oe 


Lowe, RopBert (Viscount Sherbrooke). 1811- 
1592. Winchester, and University College, 
Oxford. 


A distinguished lawyer and politician and, in- 
cidentally, an albino, whose connection with this 
book is that, in the pamphlet warfare over the 
“Tracts for the Times,’ he, without, it must be 
confessed, any very special qualifications for the 
part which he played, was one of the chief op- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 163 


ponents of the Movement. ‘Tract go” especially 
he denounced as disloyal, in bad faith, and unmoral. 

He was president of the Oxford Union, and in 
that capacity once fined Archibald Campbell Tait, 
then also a member, ‘‘for disobedience to the orders 
of the chair.’’ ‘This action was upheld when Tait 
appealed to the society against his judgment. “It 
is the only occasion on which I ever fined an arch- 
bishop for disorderly behavior,” he wrote years 


afterward (“Life of A. C. Tait,” i. 146). 


Se 


Lucas, FREDERICK. 1812-1855. 


Born a Quaker and a relative of John Bright, Mr. 
Lucas, who was called to the bar in 1835, became a 
Catholic in 1839 as the result of the study of Mil- 
ner’s “End of Controversy.” He was followed 
into the church by two brothers and his wife. He 
started “The Tablet,” and carried on that journal, 
at first in London and subsequently in Dublin, at the 
time when he sat as a Member of Parliament for the 
county of Meath as a supporter of O’Connell. 
That his paper was somewhat of a thorn in the side 
of ecclesiastical authority may be gathered from a 
letter of Wiseman’s written in 1848. “At present 
‘The Tablet’ is calculated to ruin any cause, and I 


164. WHO’S WHO OF 


trust the Catholics will shake off its tyranny and dis- 
connect themselves from it.” (‘Life of Wiseman,” 
ll. 413). 
Life, 1886. 


Se 


Macautay, Tuomas Bapincton (Lord Macau- 
lay). 1800-1859. Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. 


Historian, essayist, and politician, he cannot be 
omitted here, on account of his interesting visit to 
Wiseman in Rome and the results which it had upon 
him. In 1838, he, being on a visit to Rome, was 
taken by an English Catholic resident in the city, a 
Mr. Colyar, to see Wiseman, then president of the 
English College, whom he describes as ‘‘a young ec- 
clesiastic, full of health and vigor—much such a 
ruddy, strapping divine as I remember Whewell 
eighteen years ago—in purple vestments standing in 
the cloister.” Macaulay was much impressed by all 
that he saw and heard in Rome, and it was after his 
visit there that he penned the words, so often 
quoted, on the Church of Rome which appear in his 
review of Ranke’s “History of the Popes.” Life 
of Wiseman, i. 272. Life, and Letters, by Trevel- 
yan. 1876. 


ci 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 165 


MACMULLEN, RICHARD GELL. 1814-1895. Fel- 
low and dean of Corpus Christi College, Ox- 
ford. 


According to the statutes of this college, it was 
necessary for its fellows to proceed to the degree of 
B.D. When Macmullen proposed to carry out 
what had always been a mere formality in the past, 
Hampden (q. v.), then Regius professor of divinity, 
blocked the degree because Macmullen had been one 
of his strong opponents in the previous struggles— 
a singularly petty revenge. ‘This was tantamount 
to expelling Macmullen from his fellowship, and 
naturally he resisted, bringing an action in the vice- 
chancellor’s court, in which Hope (gq. v.) appeared 
for him and at which a verdict was given in his fa- 
vor. Hampden appealed to the delegates of Con- 
vocation, among whom there were no persons with 
legal training. This body reversed the decision, 
but, in the end, the old form of disputation for the 
degree was introduced once more and Macmullen 
obtained his B.D. and retained his fellowship “‘at 
the cost of a great deal of ill blood in Oxford,” says 
(Church (‘““The Oxford Movement,” p. 281). He 
was vicar of St. Mary Magdalene, and was received 
into the Catholic Church in 1847. Pusey wrote to 
Manning in that year lamenting this event, and in 
his reply the future cardinal says that “the direct 
and certain tendency of what remains of the original 
Movement is to the Roman Catholic Church... . 


166 WHO’S WHO OF 


It is also clear that they (the men of the Move- 
ment) are revising the Reformation; that the doc- 
trine, ritual, and practice of the Church of England 
taken at its best does not suffice them . . . I say all 
this not in fault-finding, but in sorrow. How to 
help to heal it, I do not presume to say.” Macmul- 
len was ordained priest in 1848, served first in South- 
wark, then at Moorfields, and finally was for many 
years rector of Chelsea, becoming canon of West- 
minster, 1874. 


o 


MANNING, Henry Epwarp. 1808-1892. Har- 
row; Balliol College, fellow of Merton Col- 
lege, Oxford. 


He was rector at Lavington, Sussex, 1833; arch- 
deacon of Chichester, 1840; received into the Cath- 
olic Church on Passion Sunday, 1851; archbishop of 
Westminster, 1865 ; cardinal, 1875. 

Manning can not be said to have belonged to the 
party of the Movement. In fact, he set himself de- 
liberately in opposition to it when he, with Samuel 
Wilberforce, voted against Isaac Williams for the 
poetry professorship. In 1843, Newman (‘‘Corre- 
spondence,” p. 279) had confided to Manning the un- 
settled state of his mind. ‘Manning was now thor- 
oughly alarmed. He had written to Pusey an ex- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 167 


traordinarily vehement letter in which he announced 
that he was “reduced to the painful, saddening, sick- 
ening necessity of saying what he felt about Rome.” 
He did so in his celebrated fifth of November ser- 
mon, which was a vehement diatribe against the 
church. The next day he went to see Newman at 
Littlemore. J. A. Froude describes what hap- 
pened, he having been there at that time. ‘‘When 
I was at Littlemore with Newman, Manning came 
up to Oxford to preach the fifth of November ser- 
mon. He preached in so Protestant a tone that 
Newman said, ‘If Manning comes to Littlemore, I 
shall not see him.’ Mark Pattison and I were sit- 
ting with Newman when he was told that Manning 
had come. Newman said to me, ‘You must go and 
tell him, Froude, that I will not see him.’ I went 
and told Manning, who was greatly distressed, and 
I walked along the road some way with him, to give 
him what comfort I could.” 

Of Manning’s Catholic life no account is given 
here, but let his nephew, Dr. H. I. D. Ryder, sum it 
up in words unsurpassed in beauty. “I claim that 
he be clothed in a garment down to his feet of the 
cloth of gold of charity, and for the naked hands 
and feet and face, where they have contracted any 
stain from the dust of human frailty, let them be 
wiped reverently. He has done many noble deeds, 
and has been a tower of strength and a house of ref- 
uge for God’s people, and he has met with hard 
measure at many hands, at mine, alas, it may be, 


168 WHO'S WHO OF 


but none harder than the man: who undertook to 
write his Life. In one most pathetic blessing of 
Holy Church we can all unite with confidence: quid- 
quid boni faceris et mali sustinueris, sit tibi in re- 
missionem peccatorum.” (Ryder, “Essays,” p. 
301). Life, by Purcell, (a misleading book). 
Life, by Shane Leslie. 


% 


MARRIoTT, CHARLES. 1811-1858. Balliol Col- 


lege, and afterward fellow and tutor of 
Oriel College, Oxford. 


One of the leading actors in the Movement, whose 
name has never made any great impression even on 
that part of the public which concerns itself with 
such matters, since he was a steady worker, but al- 
ways in the background. A man of handsome ap- 
pearance and with every prospect of a brilliant ca- 
reer, he threw everything aside to devote himself to 
the task of forwarding the Movement and, among 
other things, bore the burden of the ‘Library of the 
Fathers,” the main task of his life. “He had,” 
wrote Church (“The Oxford Movement,” p. 72am 
“a sturdy, penetrating, tenacious, but embarrassed 
intellect—embarrassed, at least, by the crowd and 
range of jostling thoughts, in its outward processes 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 169 


and manifestations, for he thoroughly trusted its 
inner workings and was confident of the accuracy of 
the results, even when helplessly unable to justify 
them at the moment.”’ He was, says Dean Burgon 
(“Twelve Good Men,” p. x), “the most singular, as 
well as the most saintly, character I have ever met 
with.” 

He was for a time principal of Chichester Theo- 
logical College under Bishop Otter. He was also 
for a time vicar of St. Mary’s, at Oxford, succeed- 
ing C. P. Eden in that position. He took over Lit- 
tlemore from Newman and turned it into a place for 
printing religious books. 

He was a member of the reformed Hebdomadal 
Council of the University for a number of years, 
and died at Bradfield three years after a paralytic 
seizure had laid him low. He was one of New- 
man’s dearest friends. 


a 


MARSHALL, THOMAS WILLIAM. 1818-1877. 
M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge. 


He took Anglican orders and was for a time vicar 
of Swallowcliffe, Wiltshire, but became a Catholic 
in 1845, and was subsequently one of Her Majesty’s 
Inspectors of Schools, though best known as the 


170 WHO’S WHO OF 


author of a once widely read book, “Christian Mis- 
sions.” 


ci 


MarsHalLl, A. F. Oxford. 


Brother of the above, he was once an Anglican 
curate in Liverpool; but, becoming a Catholic, wrote 
that very entertaining, though now almost forgot- 
ten book, “The Comedy of Convocation.” | 


ae 


MARSHALL, FREDERICK. 


Brother of the above, was a convert, and at one 
time attaché to the Japanese Legation in Paris. 


ci 


MARSHALL, HENry J. M.A., Pembroke College, 
Oxford. 


He was no relation to the three above-named per- 
sons, and, in the correspondence of the time, I 
suppose to distinguish him from the other con- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 171 


verts of his name, is alluded to as ‘Fat Marshall.” 

He entered Anglican orders and was curate at 
Burton Agnes, but became a Catholic in 1846. He 
was subsequently ordained a priest and received the 
degree of D.D. from Rome. 


Q 


ae 


MASKELL, WILLIAM. 1814-1890. M.A., Uni- 
versity College, Oxford. 


When rector of Marychurch, he directed the at- 
tention of Miss Drane (q. v.) to the order of St. 
Dominic. He was chaplain to Bishop Phillpotts (q. 
v.) and an authority on ancient liturgies. He was 
the author of a pamphlet asserting that the jurisdic- 
tion of the privy council was contrary to the law of 
Christ, though a logical sequel to the organization 
of the Church of England by Henry VIII and Eliza- 
beth. He concluded that the vice of Anglicanism 
was irremediable. After the Gorham judgment he 
was received into the Catholic Church (1850). 
“He was,” says the ‘Dictionary of National Biog- 
raphy,” “in the first rank of English ecclesiastical 
writers.” 


172 WHO’S WHO OF 


Mayers, WALTER. ?-1828. Pembroke College, 
Oxford. 


‘Who was the human means of this Beginning of 
Divine Faith in me” (Newman). It was from him 
that he received ‘“‘deep religious impressions, at the 
time Calvinistic in character, which were to him the 
beginning of a new life” (‘Letters and Correspond- 
ence erDisg 29°, 

He was an extremely Evangelical clergyman, and 
Newman’s classical master at Ealing School. 
When leaving, Mayers gave him a copy of Bishop 
Beveridge’s “Private Thoughts,” with a letter 
which appears in Newman’s ‘‘Correspondence” 
(p. 114). Newman preached the funeral sermon 
at the burial of Mr. Mayers in 1828. 


ge 


MENZIES, ALFRED. 1800-1836. Trinity College, 
Oxford, fellow and lecturer on philosophy. 


Burgon mentions him as one of the first writers 
of the “Tracts for the Times,” and Bowden writes 
of him to Newman (‘‘Letters and Correspondence,” 
ii. 159), “I remarked in the paper the death of one 
whom I never saw, Menzies, of Trinity; but I knew 
him by name as one of the Oxford tract writers, and 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 173 


I was thinking of him as the first of your immedi- 
ate party who had passed within the veil.’ New- 
man remarks that three men closely associated with 
himself had died on three consecutive days, viz., 
Menzies, February 27, Froude, February 28 (q. 
v.), Anstice, February 29 (q. v.). 


a 


Meyrick, THOMAS. 1818-1903. Corpus Christi 
College, Oxford, M.A., 1841. 


He became a convert in 1845 and entered the 
Society of Jesus. He wrote a “Life of St. Willi- 
brord,” archbishop of Utrecht, which was, however, 
laid aside and not published until 1877, after having 
Jain for thirty-three years in a drawer. It was then 
published anonymously, but with a dedication to 
Newman in which it is stated that ‘‘This little Life 
of the apostle of the Netherlands was written for 
you... has lain dead and buried for the space of 
thirty-three years, and, with your kind permission, 
the resuscitated innocent would fain see public life 
under your auspices and protection.” 


Es 


174 WHO'S WHO OF 


Mitts, Henry Austin. Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. 


He left college without taking a degree, became 
an early convert and an Oratorian, and remained at 
the Birmingham Oratory until his death in 1903. 


ae 


MivarT, St. GeorGE. 1827-1900. F.R.S., 1867. 


Filled with architectural interest at the age of 
sixteen, during a tour of churches designed by 
Pugin, he went to St. Chad’s Cathedral at Birming- 
ham, where he met Dr. Moore, afterwards presi- 
dent of Oscott College, by whom he was received 
into the Catholic Church in 1844. He remained 
at Oscott until 1846. He was called to the bar, but 
devoted his life to scientific studies. 


& 


Montcomery, Georce. 1818-1871. B.A., Trin- 
ity College, Dublin. 


An Irishman and son of a former Lord Mayor of 
Dublin. He took Anglican orders and was curate 
at Castleknock, near Dublin. He was one of the 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 175 


first batch of residents at Maryvale when Newman 
took possession of that place, and was received into 
the Catholic Church in 1845. 

He was ordained priest at Oscott in 1849, and 
was for a short time stationed at Kenilworth, but in 
1850 was sent to Wednesbury to found the mission 
there, and there he remained for the rest of his 
priestly life, dying in the town in which he had 
labored for twenty-one years. 


ae 


Morris, JOHN BRANDE. 1812-1880. Fellow and 
Hebrew lecturer, Exeter College, Oxford. 


A very learned Orientalist, “otherwise ‘Jack 
Morris’ or ‘Simeon Stylites’”? (Mozley, ‘‘Reminis- 
cences,’’ 11. 10), he was a singular character of whom 
Newman relates that, having left him in charge of 
St. Mary’s during a short absence with a warning 
to be careful as to what he preached about, the 
result was that on St. Michael’s Day he preached a 
sermon not only on angels, but on fasting, declaring 
inter alia that the brute creation should be made to 
fast on fast days. This upset the authorities con- 
siderably, but still more his second sermon, in which 
he preached the full doctrine of the Mass and 
“added in energetic terms that every one was an 
unbeliever, carnal, and so forth, who did not hold 


176 WHO'S WHO OF 


it.” As a consequence, he was brought before the 
vice-chancellor and admonished. Morris was one 
of those who “‘cut into the Movement at an angle,” 
as Newman put it. In 1846 he became a Catholic, 
was a student at Oscott, 1846-48, being ordained a 
priest in the latter year. (See also sub voce, 


‘Lewis, David.’’) 


# 


Moztey, James Bowrinc. 1813-1878. Fellow 
of Magdalen College, Oxford, 1840, and 
Regius professor of divinity, 1871. 


A copious writer and deep thinker, whose Bamp- 
ton Lectures are among the small minority of such 
effusions still read. After Newman had become a 
Catholic, J. B. Mozley became the leader of those 
who had not followed their former guide. Two of 
his brothers were married to sisters of Newman 
and, illogically enough, that fact seriously prejudiced 
him in his earlier candidatures for fellowships. A 
contemporary says of him that he ‘‘combined the 
clear form of Cardinal Newman with the profundity 
of Bishop Butler.” (‘“‘Letters.” 1884.) 


Se 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 177 


Moztry, Tuomas. 1806-1893. Fellow of Oriel 
College, Oxford, 1829. 


Afterward rector of Plymtree, Devonshire. 
Brother to James Mozley (q. v.), he married New- 
man’s sister Harriett, while a third brother, John, 
married another sister, Jemima. He was very 
closely associated with Newman, who nominated 
him as editor of the “British Critic’ when resigning 
it himself. The kindest-hearted of men, as readers 
of his book will admit, he was too tolerant of ex- 
tremists such as W. G. Ward and Oakeley, and the 
review had to be discontinued. 

Mozley’s “Reminiscences of Oriel College and 
the Oxford Movement” will always remain one of 
the pleasantest and most intimate accounts of the 
men connected with that Movement; and apart from 
that, no one can read without interest and sympathy 
the story of the writer’s searchings of heart, which 
must have been paralleled in many other cases, as to 

whether to stay or go when the great leader made 
his momentous choice. However hard one may find 
it to understand the reasons for the choice to stay, 
no one can for a moment doubt its absolute hon- 
esty. 


ee 


178 WHO’S WHO OF 


NEALE, JOHN Mason. 1818-1866. Trinity Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 


From 1846 to his death, warden of Sackville 
College, East Grinstead. He was an advanced 
High-churchman and was inhibited by his bishop, 
1849-63. Besides prose works, some of impor- 
tance, like his “History of the Holy Eastern 
Church,” as a hymn-writer he was in the front rank 
in his day, and many of his productions are known 
all over the world. While still an undergraduate, 
he, with others, founded the ‘Cambridge Camden 
Society,” which, after flourishing for six years, 
came to an end, but was later on succeeded by the 
Fcclesiological Society. 


NEWMAN, FRANCIS WILLIAM. 1805-1897. Wor- 
cester College, and fellow of Balliol College, 
Oxford, 1826, in which year he obtained a 
double-first. 


Francis Newman would be forgotten to-day but 
for the fame of his elder brother whose views were 
the antipodes of his. Francis left the university in 
1830, declining to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles. He was for a time professor of Latin in 
University College, London, and his book, “Phases 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 179 


of Faith,’ was once a well-known work (published 
1853). His ideal of a religion was one containing 
all that was good—or that he thought was good— 
selected from all the historical religions. With the 
Movement he had no kind of connection, and only 
occurs in this work in respect of his relationship to 
its leader. : 


& 


NewMan, JoHN Henry. 801 (February 21)- 
1890 (August 11). Fellow of Oriel Col- 
lege, Oxford, 1822. 


Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, 1828. Resigned 
that position, 1843. Received into the Catholic 
Church, October 9, 1845, by Fr. Dominic, C.P. (q. 
v.). Ordained priest, 1846. Founded the Ora- 
tory in Birmingham, 1847, and in London, 1849, the 
latter being made independent of the former in 
1850. Achillivs. Newman, 1852. Rector of Cath- 
olic University, Dublin, 1854-1858. The Kingsley 
episode, 1864. Honorary fellow of Trinity Col- 
lege (his original college), Oxford. Cardinal dea- 
con, 1879. 

The history of the Movement is summed up in 
the history of its leader, and all that can be at- 
tempted here is to select certain aspects of that life 


180 WHO’S WHO OF 


and give the quotations thereon from the writings of 
his contemporaries which seem most vividly to bring 
the man before us. 

I. Appearance. ‘His appearance was not com- 
manding to strangers. It never was. Henry Wil- 
berforce from the first called him ‘o Méyas, but he 
knew the inner as well as the outer man. Newman 
did not carry his head aloft or make the best use of 
his height. He did not stoop, but he had a slight 
bend forward, owing perhaps to the rapidity of his 
movements, and to his always talking while he was 
walking. His gait was that of a man on serious 
business bent, and not on a promenade. There was 
no pride in his port or defiance in his eye. ae 
Thin, pale, and with large, lustrous eyes ever pierc- 
ing through this veil of men and things, he hardly 
seemed made for this world. . . . His dress—it be- 
came almost the badge of his followers—was the 
long-tailed coat, not always very new. .. . George 
Ryder (q. v.) said of him that when his mouth was 
shut it looked as if never could open; and when it 
was open it looked as if it never could shut.” (T. 
Mozley, ‘Reminiscences,’ ij. 204-6) 

“His appearance was striking. He was above 
the middle height, slight and spare. His head was 
large, his face remarkably like that of Julius Cesar. 
The forehead, the shape of the ears and nose were 
almost the same. The lines of the mouth were very 
peculiar, and, I should say, exactly the same” ( J. 
Froude, ‘“Good Words,” 1881, p. 162) 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 181 


II. Characteristics. “I have often thought of 
the resemblance, and believed,’ continues that 
writer, ‘‘that it extended to the temperament. In 
both there was an original force of character which 
refused to be moulded by circumstances, which was 
to make its own way, and become a power in the 
world; a clearness of intellectual perception, a dis- 
dain for conventionalities, a temper imperious and 
wilful, but, along with it, a most attaching gentle- 
ness, sweetness, singleness of heart and purpose. 
Both were formed by nature to command others; 
both had the faculty of attracting to themselves the 
passionate devotion of their friends and follow- 
ers. . . . Greatly as his poetry had struck me, he 
was himself all that his poetry was, and something 
far beyond.” (As above) 

‘“Newman’s general characteristics—his genius, 
depth of purpose; his hatred of pomp and affecta- 
tion; his piercing insight into the workings of the 
human mind—at least that part of it which is best 
worth knowing; his strong and tenacious, if some- 
what fastidious, affection (not, it must be confessed, 
without a certain tenacity of aversion also), are all 
matters of history. I should add that he always 
seemed to me to have a kind of repugnance to the 
highly finished manners of the man of the world. 
Nothing covers what is behind it so completely as 
moral or physical polish. It reveals nothing but 
what it reflects. And this Newman did not like. 
It baffled him and kept him at a distance. He did 


182 WHO’S WHO OF 


not know what matter of interest he could touch with 
confidence; and this, to a man who is keenly alive to 
sympathy or the want of it, means an atmosphere 
of artificial constraint.’ (Blachford, ‘Letters,” 
p. 14) 

‘III. Sincerity. Since some few ill-informed per- 
sons seem to have challenged this, it may be well to 
set down the opinion of one who knew him well and 
with a life-long knowledge, and who did not follow 
him in his change of religion. T. Mozley writes: 
“During the whole period of my personal acquaint- 
ance and communication with Newman, I never had 
any other thought than that he was more thoroughly 
in earnest, and more entirely convinced of the truth 
of what he was saying, than any man I had come 
across yet. ‘This conviction, I have to say, was to 
a certain extent unconscious on my part, for I can- 
not remember ever to have entertained the question 
whether Newman did really believe everything he 
professed to believe. ‘There never occurred any- 
thing to suggest the contrary.’’ (‘‘Reminiscences,” 
ll. 438) 

IV. His position in the Movement. Speaking of 
the group generally, the same writer says: ‘I may 
honestly say that, with the exception of Keble, I do 
not think one would be a living name a century 
hence but for his share in the light of Newman’s 
genius and goodness.” (Vol. i. 8) 

‘The rest were all but ciphers, and he, the indi- 
cating number.” J. A. Froude. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 183 


‘The influence which Newman had gained, appar- 
ently without setting himself to seek it, was alto- 
gether unlike anything else in our time. A mysteri- 
ous veneration had by degrees gathered round him, 
till now it was almost as if some Ambrose or Au- 
gustine of elder days had appeared.” (Shairp, 
afterward principal of Glasgow University, writ- 
ing to Archbishop Tait. ‘Life of A. C. Tait,” i. 
105) 

V. As a preacher in Anglican days. His ser- 
mons were plain, direct, unornamented, clothed in 
English that was only pure and lucid, free from any 
faults of taste, strong in their perfect flexibility and 
perfect command both of language and thought; 
they were the expression of a piercing and large in- 
sight into character and conscience and motives, of 
a sympathy at once most tender and most stern with 
the tempted and wavering, of an absolute and burn- 
ing faith in God and His counsels, in His love . . . 
in His magnificence.’ (Church, “The Oxford 
Movement,” pp. 29, 30) 

“Who could resist the charm of that spiritual ap- 
parition, gliding in the dim afternoon light of the 
aisles of St. Mary’s, rising into the pulpit, and then 
in the most entrancing of voices breaking the silence 
with words and thoughts which were a religious 
music—subtle, sweet, mournful. Happy the man 
who in the susceptible season of youth hears such 
voices. They are a possession to him for ever.” 
(“Matthew Arnold—never in any sense a follower 


184 WHO'S WHO OF 


of Newman nor of the Movement—‘“Discourses in 
America,” p. 139) 

“After hearing these sermons, you might come 
away still not believing the truths peculiar to the 
High Church system, but you would be harder than 
most men if you did not feel more than ever 
ashamed of coarseness, selfishness, worldliness, if 
you did not feel the things of faith brought closer to 
the soul.” (Shairp. ‘Studies in Poetry and Phi- 
losophy,” p. 275) 

VI. On his conversion. ‘The seccession of Mr. 
Newman dealt a blow to the Anglican Church under 
which it still reels.” (Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of 
Beaconsfield) 

It ‘left those who had hitherto followed him de- 
capitated, disorganised, suspected by others and sus- 
pecting one another.” (Blachford) 

“The sensation to us was as of a sudden end of 
all things and without a new beginning.” (M. 
Pattison, ‘“Memoirs,” p. 235) 

‘We felt that we had been betrayed, and we re- 
sented the wrong which had been done to us.” 
(Burgon, ‘Twelve Good Men,” i. 423) 

‘On these things, looking over an interval of five 
and twenty years, how vividly comes back the re- 
membrance of the aching blank, the awful pause 
which fell on Oxford when that voice had ceased, 
and we knew that we should hear it no more. It 
was as when, to one kneeling by night in the silence 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 185 


of some vast cathedral, the great bell tolling sol- 
emnly overhead has suddenly gone still . . . since 
then, many voices of powerful teachers may have 
been heard, but none that ever penetrated the soul 
like his.” (Shairp, ut supra, p. 255) 

VII. Respecting the “Apologia Pro Vita Sua.” 

1. Dean Church on its prospects of success. 
(“Life and Letters,” p. 168): 

“If Newman’s ‘Apologia’ to the British public suc- 
ceeds in bringing them round to judge him fairly, he 
will have accomplished a remarkable feat. He can 
do it if any man can; but he runs a risk.” 

2. What really happened: 

Mr. Meyrick, who wrote a very hot attack upon 
the book under the title, “‘Isn’t Kingsley Right Af- 
ter All?” was compelled to admit that Newman had 
actually accomplished the “remarkable feat.” He 
says: “All England has been laughing with you, 
and those who knew you of old have rejoiced to see 
you once more come forth like a lion from his lair, 
with undiminished strength of muscle; and they have 
smiled as they watched you carry off the remains 
of Mr. Charles Kingsley (no mean prey), lashing 
your sides with your tail, and growling and mutter- 
ing as you retreat into your den” (“Life of New- 
man,” il. 34). 

3. A lady’s curious view of the importance of 
the occasion: 


Miss Mozley, editing her brother’s letters (p. 


186 WHO'S WHO OF 


260), speaks of ‘‘a correspondence, which has been 
exciting much amusement, between Doctor Newman 
and Mr. Kingsley.” 

VIII. An'American reverberation. 

Though it is impossible to deal with the effect of — 
the Movement on the American continent, one pas- — 
sage may be quoted, as both interesting and little 
known in England, from the Rev. Clarence E. Wal- 
worth’s book, ‘‘The Oxford Movement in Amer- 
ica” (New York. 1895). ‘‘In the latter part of 
August, 1845, when James A. McMaster, Isaac 
Hecker” (the founder of the now well-known Paul- 
ist Congregation), ‘‘with myself, all fresh converts 
to the Catholic Church, were passing through Lon- 
don on our way to the Redemptorist novitiate at St. 
Trond, in Belgium, the first named separated from us 
long enough to visit John Henry Newman, then still 
connected with the Anglican Church and dwelling in 
retirement at Littlemore, near Oxford. When in- 
troduced into his library, McMaster found him occu- 
pied in a manner not altogether strange to so busy 
a student. His right foot rested upon the seat of a 
chair; he stood bending over a book which he held 
in his left hand, the contents of which he devoured 
simultaneously with a sandwich administered to his 
mouth by the right. 

“When McMaster informed him that he had be- 
come a Catholic and was about to become a religi- 
ous, Newman expressed no surprise and made no un- 
favorable comment. Only two months later he was 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 187 


himself a convert.” Life, by Wilfred Ward. 1912. 
Letters and Correspondence. 1917. 


ae 


NorTHCOTE, JAMES SPENCER. 1821-1907. Cor- 
pus Christi College, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and married (1842). 
His wife was received into the Catholic Church in 
1845, and he followed in 1846, becoming a master 
at Prior Park, editor of the ‘“Rambler,” 1853-54, 
and part editor of the “Clifton Tracts.” Newman 
unsuccessfully endeavored to secure him for a chair 
at University College, Dublin. In 1853, his wife 
died and, after two years study, he was ordained a 
priest and subsequently became president of Oscott 
and provost of the Birmingham Chapter. He be- 
came completely paralyzed during his latter days 
and was devotedly cared for by a daughter, a Do- 
minican nun at Stone, to which place he had retired, 
but, to his great grief, she predeceased him. 

He was the author of a number of books, of 
which “Roma Sotteranea,” written with Dr. Brown- 
low, afterward bishop of Clifton, is the best known. 


oe 


188 WHO’S WHO OF 


OAKELEY, FREDERICK. j1802-1880. Christ 
Church, fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. 
1827. 


He was an intimate friend of W. G. Ward, and 
with him and Dalgairns, “cut into the original 
Movement at an angle, fell across its line of thought, 
and then set about turning that line in its own di- 
rection” (“Apologia,” p. 278). After taking An- 
glican orders, he became incumbent of Margaret 
Street Chapel (a hideous building, to judge from 
pictures), which was pulled down in 1850 and re- 
placed by the present church of All Saints. Here 
he remained from 1839 to 1845, when he joined the 
Catholic Church. Being an excellent musician and 
an advanced High-churchman, he introduced cere- 
monies at his chapel hitherto unknown in Protestant 
edifices. Writing in 1847, a friend says to J. M. 
Neale: “At Margaret Chapel they have now got 
up a complete musical Mass—the Commandments, 
Epistle, Gospel, Preface, etc., all sung to the ancient 
music . . . I venture to assert that there has been 
nothing so solemn since the Reformation’”’ (Ollard. 
p- 233). He gathered there a very important con- 
gregation, among whom were Hope, Badeley, and 
Bellasis (q. v.), all of whom followed him into the 
Catholic Church. In 1845, Blomfield, bishop of 
London, took him before the Court of Arches. 
“He claimed the right to hold, as distinct from 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 189 


teaching, all the peculiar doctrines of the Church of 
Rome, while remaining a clergyman of the Church 
of England. Bishop Blomfield felt it his duty not 
to pass over this extraordinary claim. He might 
have summarily revoked the license of Mr. Oakeley, 
but he thought it better, with the advice of his arch- 
deacons, to give him the same benefits which he 
would have enjoyed as an incumbent. (For a full 
account see Bellasis, ‘“Memoirs,” p. 48, and New- 
man, “Correspondence,” p. 367.) The court 
passed sentence of perpetual suspension. Oakeley 
became a Catholic in 1845 and was.ordained a priest 
in 1847. He was a canon of Westminster and mis- 
sionary rector of St. John’s, Islington. ‘‘Nobody 
cared less for himself, or took less care of himself. 
He spent his life eventually serving a poor congre- 
gation, chiefly Irish, in the not very attractive region 
of Islington. He might be seen limping about the 
streets of London,—for he was very lame,—a mis- 
shapen fabric of bare bones, upon which hung some 
very shakby canonicals. Yet his eye was bright, 
and his voice, though sorrowful, was kind; and he 
was always glad to greet an old friend’? (Mozley, 
~ Reminiscences,” ii. p. 5) (See also s. v. “Tait, 
Archibald Campbell’’) 


190 WHO'S WHO OF 


OrnsBy, Ropert. \1809-1889. Fellow of Trin- 
ity College, Oxford. 


After his reception into the Catholic Church he 
remained a layman and accompanied Newman in his 
campaign in Ireland, and, in the book under that ti- 
tle, privately published by Newman, there are let- 
ters to him. 

Cardinal Cullen strongly objected to Ornsby’s ap- 
pointment as professor of classical literature in the 
Dublin College, regarding the selection of Irish 
teachers as more important than that of securing 
the best exponents of their subjects. Newman, 
however, in this instance carried his point, and 
Ornsby remained in his position long after New- 
man’s departure. He was the author of the “Life” 
of Hope-Scott (q. v.) and a fellow—under the 
Disraelian scheme—of the Royal University of Ire- 
land. He married the sister of Fr. Dalgairns (q. 
v.). She became a Catholic one year after her hus- 
band. ) 


ci 


PALMER, WILLIAM (afterward Sir W illiam) 
1803-1885. Trinity College, Dublin. 


Frequently confounded (and even by Wilfred 
Ward in his ‘Oxford Movement,” p. 20) with his 
namesake of Magdalen College, Oxford (q. v.), he 
came over from Ireland and became connected with 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 191 


Worcester College, for the purpose of making a 
complete study of the Anglican Prayer-book, the re- 
sults of which were his ‘‘Origines Liturgice,” 1832, 
and “Treatise on the Church of Christ,” in which 
the Irish Protestant peeps out in his description of 
the Catholic Church in his native country as “the 
Irish schism.” A further curious phase of charac- 
ter was his support of the Jerusalem bishopric 
scheme, to which he subscribed. W. Ward de- 
scribes him as “a controversalist who was seldom 
embarrassed by seeing two sides to a question.” 
He was “‘the only really learned man amongst us. 
He understood theology as a science” (‘‘Apologia,” 
p. 108), but “was deficient in depth.” He was the 
first to express gratification at the publication of 
‘Tract 90,” though at the time there was a coolness 
between Newman and himself. He wrote a ‘‘Nar- 
rative of Events Connected with the Publication of 
the ‘Tracts for the Times.’’? He remained an An- 
glican to the end of his life. 


ae 


PALMER, WILLIAM. 1811-1879. Rugby, and fel- 
low of Magdalen College, Oxford. 


Brother of the first Lord Shelborne (Lord Chan- 
cellor) and often confused with William Palmer of 
Dublin (q. v.). He was a tutor in the University 


192 WHO’S WHO OF 


of Durham, 1833-36, and entered the Catholic 
(Church, 1855. 

Holding the three-branch theory, he went to Rus- 
sia, hoping to get such admissions from the Holy 
Synod as would prove that “it was no mere theory, 
and that an Anglican Church was, ipso facto, an 
oriental orthodox one also.’ An account of his 
journey was published in his ‘“‘Notes of a Visit to 
the Russian Church, 1840-41,” which appeared 
years later with an introduction, dated ‘‘Birming- 
ham, 1882,” by Newman, who says of him, “He was 
one of those earnest-minded and devout men, forty 
years since, who, deeply convinced of the great 
truth that our Lord had instituted, and still acknowl- 
edges and protects, a visible Church,” entered on the 
course which at long last brought him into that 
church. 

“If William Palmer was an ecclesiastical Don 
Quixote, he was also an ecclesiastical Ulysses. He 
had seen and studied every variety of religious be- 
lief and life. His conversation was most interest- 
ing; his language was racy in the highest degree.” 
(Goldwin Smith, ‘‘Reminiscences,” p. 59). 


ae 
PATTERSON, JAMES LaIRD. 1822-1902. 


In 1835, he, being then a Protestant, heard a lec- 
ture on ethnology delivered in Rome by Wiseman. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 193 


In 1840, he found himself plunged in the Oxford 
Movement, and, after being received into the Cath- 
olic Church in 1850, it was to Wiseman that, in the 
following year, he went to offer his services in the 
ministry. After his ordination he was for many 
years Wiseman’s master of ceremonies and was con- 
secrated coadjutor to the see of Westminster under 
the title of “Bishop of Emmaus.” 


% 


PATTISON, MARK. 1813-1884. Educated, unfor- 
tunately for himself, at home; came up to 
Oriel College; fellow of Lincoln College, Ox- 
ford, 1839, and rector from 1861 until his 
death. 


For a time he fell under the influence of Newman 
and wrote two of the ‘Lives of the Saints” and 
other works. “To return to Lincoln (College), 
after rejecting James Mozley for a fellowship two 
years since for his opinions, they have been taken 
by Pattison, this last term, an inmate of the Ceno- 
bitium (i.e., Littlemore). He happened to stand 
very suddenly, and they had no time to inquire. 
They now stand in amazement at their feat.” 
(Newman, “Letters and Correspondence,” ii. 266) 

In popular belief, Pattison went near to follow- 
ing his leader into the Catholic Church, but took the 


fon WHO'S WHO OF 


opposite road, like J. A. Froude, and passed into 
complete disbelief. An eminent writer, his ‘“‘Mem- 
oirs” fell from the pen of a thoroughly soured man 
and speak well of but one man,—Dean Church,—of 
whom, indeed, it would be hard to speak unkindly; 
but the same might be said of some of his other vic- 
tims. “I once, and only once, got so low, by foster- 
ing a morbid state of conscience, as to go to confes- 
sion to Dr. Pusey. -'Years afterwards it came to my 
knowledge that Pusey had told a fact about myself, 
which he got from me on that occasion, to a friend 
of his, who employed it to annoy me” (‘“‘Memoirs,” 
p. 189). An almost incredible tale, when Pusey’s 
character as a gentleman, to say nothing more, is 
considered. His final view as to Newman in the 
same work sums up his philosophy of later days. 
‘He was inspired by the triumph of the church or- 
ganisation over the wisdom and philosophy of the 
Hellenic world; that triumph which, to the Human- 
ist, is the saddest moment in history, the ruin of the 
painfully constructed fabric of civilization to the 
profit of the church.” With the last quotation in 
mind, the reader will follow with the greater inter- 
est, and indeed acceptance, what Goldwin Smith— 
no friend to the Movement or indeed to revealed re- 
ligion itself—had to say about Pattison (‘‘Remin- 
iscences,” p. 84). ‘‘He had once been an ardent 
follower of Newman. It was said that he had es- 
caped secession only by missing a train. He had, 
however, missed that train with a vengeance, and 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 195 


had become a notable specimen of the recoil; though 
once when he preached before the University, there 
seemed to me to be something like a regurgitation 
of the asceticism of his Newmanite days. In his 
case, as in that of Jowett, one could not help wonder- 
ing how an Agnostic could hold the office and per- 
form the religious functions of a clerical head of a 
college.” Memoirs. 1885. 


oe 


PENNY, WILLIAM GOooDENOUGH. 1815-1885. 
Christ Church, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders and was for a time cu- 
rate at Asherton, then one of the early converts with 
Newman. He was one of the little community at 
Maryvale when Littlemore was abandoned, and sub- 
sequently joined the Birmingham Oratory, which, 
however, he later left to become a secular priest. 
As his name disappeared from the Catholic Direc- 
tory after 1885, it is to be presumed that he died in 
that year. He had the reputation of being a man 
with much mathematical and astronomical learning. 


& 


196 WHO’S WHO OF 


PERCIVAL, ARTHUR PuiLip (The Honorable). 
1799-18 53. 


He is of interest in connection with the Move- 
ment as one of those who took part in the ‘Had- 
leigh Conference” (see “Rose, infra). “He was 
never an active member of the Movement and was 
spoken of by Newman as a High-churchman of ‘‘the 
Established type.”” He was chaplain to George 
IV, to William IV, and to Victoria, who dismissed ° 
him from that position because he ventured to pro- 
test against the Gorham judgment. He wrote 
three of the ‘“Tracts for the Times” and a book on 
apostolical succession; also a work called the 
“Churchman’s Manual,” which was revised by Rose 
and Palmer and was intended to be a supplement to 
the catechism of the Anglican Church. It was sub- 
mitted for criticism to all sorts of men and was evi- 
dently intended to be an authoritative statement. 
“It appears to have had a circulation, but there is no 
reason to think that it had any considerable influ- 
ence, one way -or the other, on opinion in the 
church.” (Church, “The Oxford Movement,” p. 
110.) He was also the author of a curious book 
called “Origines Hibernice,” in which he endeay- 
ored to prove that Ireland was the Patmos of the 
Apocalypse, which seems to have won even less rec- 
ognition, as indeed might be expected, than his 
other books. 


oe 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 197 


PHILLPOTTs, HENRY. 1778-1869. Gloucester, and 
Corpus Christi College, and fellow of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford. 


“Henry of Exeter,” bishop of that diocese, is 
chiefly remembered as the other party in the memor- 
able Gorham struggle. He was a High-churchman, 
but vehemently attacked “Tract 90” and had a vig- 
orous controversy with Charles Butler (the well- 
known Catholic writer) on Catholic emancipation, a 
project which he opposed very strongly. 


ae 


POLLEN, JOHN HUNGERFORD. 1820-1892. Fel- 
low of Merton College, Oxford, and some- 


time senior proctor. 


Took Anglican orders and was for a time at- 
tached to St. Saviour’s Church, at Leeds. He was 
received into the Catholic Church in Rouen by the 
archbishop of that see in 1852, and then turned his 
attention to decorative art, a subject which had al- 
ways been dear to him and in which he had exer- 
cised his skill in Anglican days by decorating the 
roofs of the church of St. Peter-le-Bailey, at Oxford, 
and of Merton College Chapel. 

Pollen went with Newman to Dublin as professor 
of fine arts and, while there, designed or helped to de- 


198 WHO'S WHO OF 


sign the lovely little chapel once that of the Catholic 
University, now a parish church. This was paid for 
by Newman out of the surplus funds subscribed to pay 
the expenses of the Achilli trial. Mr. Pollen was 
subsequently connected with the British Museum 
for a number of years and was notary apostolic for 
the cause of the Beatification of the English Mar- 
tyrs. 


ci 


Pope, THomMAs ALDER. 1819-1904. Jesus Col- 
lege, Cambridge. M.A., 1847. 


He took Anglican orders and was rector of St. 
Matthias’, Stoke Newington, London; became a 
Catholic in 1856, joined the staff of the Oratory 
School in 1862, and subsequently became a member 
of the Birmingham Oratory. 


Wp 
GBs 


Pope, RicHarD. 1829-1903. 


Well known to generations of Oratory School 
boys, he was a younger brother of the above and like 
his brother entered Anglican Orders and was for 
some years a missionary in the Madras Presidency 
at Tuticorin, Tanjore, and elsewhere. Becoming 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 199 


a Catholic, he accepted a position as a master at the 


Oratory School. Father of Fr. Hugh Pope, O. P. 


® 


Prevost, (The Rev.) Str Georce. 1804-1893. 


Son of another Sir George of evil fame in Can- 
ada. He took Anglican orders and was with Isaac 
Williams at Southrop. Married Williams’s sister 
and brought back from a visit to Paris the four vol- 
umes of the Parisian Breviary, then unknown in 
England, which he introduced to Keble, who trans- 
lated various hymns from it. 

He was the writer of an early “Tract for the 
Times.” 


Wp 


i 


PuciIn, AuGustus WELBy. 1812-1852. 


The leader of the Gothic Revival and the one 
architect of real genius which it produced, tower- 
ing over all others contemporary with him. He be- 
came a convert in 1833, under the influence of the 
course of lectures delivered in that year in London 
by Wiseman. He was associated.with Barry in de- 
signing the Houses of Parliament. It is admitted 
that he was responsible for all the sculpture and dec- 


200 WHO’S WHO OF 


orations, and many have thought, though the point 
can never now be settled, that the entire design was 
almost exclusively his. His first important Catho- 
lic church was the cathedral of St. Chad, at Bir- 
mingham, and that at Nottingham followed, as well 
as that at Killarney. He was an intolerant ‘‘Goth”’ 
and declined to believe that Our Lady could possi- 
bly have appeared to Ratisbon in the church of S. 
Andrea della Fratti on account of what he con- 
sidered its debased architecture. On being told, 
however, that Ratisbon’s whole soul was in revolt 
against the building, which he was studying with 
horror, he exclaimed that “(Our Lady would appear 
to such a man anywhere!” Of W.G. Ward he said 
that he was not worthy to live in the neighborhood 
of such a screen as he—Pugin—had erected in the 
chapel at Old Hall; certainly a beautiful piece of 
work. Recollections of A. W. Pugin and his Fa- 
ther, by Ferrez—1861. 


Wa) 
aS 


PURBRICK, Epwarp. 1830-1914. Christ Church, 
Oxford. 


He never graduated, having been received into 
the Catholic Church by Canon Oakeley when twenty 
years of age. In the next year he entered the novi- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 201 


tiate of the Society of Jesus. ‘After holding various 
positions in the Society, including the rectorship of 
Stonyhurst, he was made visitor of the Canadian 
Province and, in the following year, provincial of the 
English Province, a position which he held from 
1880-88. In 1897, he became provincial of the 
Maryland-New York Province, a post which he 
held until rgo1, though ill-health compelled his resi- 
dence in England in 1900. 

Subsequently he was instructor of Tertians at 
Poughkeepsie, New York, returning to England in 


1914. 
oe 


Pusey, Epwarp BouverigE. ‘1800-1882. Fellow 
of Oriel College, Oxford, 1823. Regius 
professor of Hebrew, 1828. 


Pusey attached his well-known initials to one of 
the early ‘“Tracts,” and thus obtained the notoriety 
which he never desired, for he was never the leader 
of the Movement, nor desirous of being such, nor of 
giving his name as a nickname to it. Puseyism, Pu- 
seismus, Puseisme, Puseista ‘“‘found their way into 
German lecture-halls and Parisian salons and remote 
convents and police offices in Italy and Sicily; indeed, 
in the shape of movgaopss, might be lighted on in 


202 _ WHO'S WHO OF 


a Greek newspaper” (Church, “The Oxford Move- 
ment,” p. 160). 

The condemnation of Pusey’s sermon, in 1843, on 
the Eucharist by the vice-chancellor, and the ab- 
surdities of that temporary potentate, will be found 
fully set forth in Church’s work; but this should not 
be forgotten—that, at the moment when, at the insti- 
gation of Dr. Faussett (q. v.), then Margaret pro- 
fessor of divinity, and on the report of six doctors, 
none of whom, as a writer remarks, would have 
been heard of to-day but for this episode, and with- 
out hearing Pusey himself in his own defense, sen- 
tence was pronounced against him and he was for- 
bidden to preach fer two years, he was, in the words 
of Church, “without question the most venerated 
person in Oxford. Without an equal, in Oxford at 
least, in the depth and range of his learning, he 
stood out more impressively among his fellows in 
the lofty moral elevation and simplicity of his life, 
the blamelessness of his youth, and the profound 
devotion of his manhood.” ‘This condemnation 
was, of course, part of the effort to stay the rising 
tide. 

Pusey himself remained an Anglican, and it is a 
curious fact that Nitsch, a German leader in a 
school of religious thought which might, perhaps, be 
described as being both Evangelical and Latitudin- 
arian, told Stanley, who was visiting him, that, in his 
opinion, Pusey, who had once been his friend and 
disciple, would die “stark evangelisch, ganz protes- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 203 


tantish,” which indeed proved to be a correct fore- 
cast (“Life of Stanley,” i. 221.) Life, by Liddon, 
Johnston, and Wilson. 


Se 


Pye, Henry JouHN. 1827-1903. Educated at 
Eton, and T'rinity College, Cambridge. 


He took Anglican orders and was curate to Sam- 
uel Wilberforce at Cuddesdon, marrying his elder 
daughter Emily Charlotte. They were both re- 
ceived into the Catholic Church on St. Luke’s day, 
1868, and Bishop Wilberforce writes in his diary 
of the event, (‘‘Life,” p. 452), ‘‘a terrible letter 
from H. Pye which almost stunned me. He is go- 
ing over after all, to Rome, and, of course, my poor 
E For years I have prayed incessantly 
against this last act of his, and now it seems denied 
me. It seems as if my heart would break at this in- 
sult, out of my own bosom, to God’s truth in Eng- 
land’s church, the preference for the vile harlotry of 
the Papacy. God forgive them. I have struggled 
on my knees against feelings of wrath against him 
in a long, long, weeping cry to God. May He judge 
between this wrong-doer and me!” 

After his conversion, Pye turned to law and was 
called to the bar. In 1884, he inherited the estate 
of Clifton Campville and founded a permanent mis- 





204 WHO'S WHO OF 


sion at Haunton, Staffordshire, two miles distant, 
building the picturesque stone church in 1902. 
He is said to have known the “Summa’’ of St. 


Thomas Aquinas as well as he knew his Bible. 
ci 


RICKARDS, SAMUEL. 1796-1865. Matriculated 
at Oriel College, Oxford, 1813, becoming a 
fellow in 1817. 


He became incumbent of Ulcombe in Kent, at 
which place Newman, when staying with Rickards, 
wrote the poem on ‘“‘Nature and Art,” and afterward 
at Stowlangtoft, near Bury St. Edmunds. “I never 
heard of any one who was not charmed with Rick- 
ards,” says Mozley (‘‘Reminiscences,” ii. 79). 

He was for a short time connected with the Move- 
ment, and a member of the often mentioned dining- 
club, but “found early that he had to part company 
with it even if for a day he was heart and soul with 
it. He wrote in an expostulatory and warning tone 
to Keble. After a very short interchange of let- 
ters, the correspondence abruptly ceased. He 
wrote to Newman with the same result. He was 
soon outside altogether” (Mozley, ii. 86.). The 
same author gives an amusing instance of Rickards’ 
power of fascination:—‘‘A lady who was going to 
be married the next day confided to Mrs. Rickards 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 20s 


her painful misgivings. ‘My dear,’ said Mrs. Rick- 
ards, ‘the day before I was married I was the hap- 
piest of women.’ ‘Oh, but you were going to marry 
Mr. Rickards,’ the expectant bride innocently ex- 
claimed.” 


RosE, Hucu James. 1795-1838. Trinity Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 


Rector of Hadleigh, Suffolk, to which, in Catho- 
lic times, the deanery of Bocking had been attached; 
at one time chaplain to Archbishop Howley; profes- 
sor of divinity, University of Durham, 1833; prin- 
cipal of King’s College, London, 1836. After vis- 
iting Germany, in 1824, he returned to England 
much impressed with the dangers of the rationalist 
school, then rising in Prussia, and delivered a series 
of discourses “On the State of the Protestant Re- 
ligion in Germany,” which made a great impression, 
and were opposed by Pusey, to Pusey’s subsequent 
regret. He was one of the two editors of the ‘‘The- 
ological Library’ and the editor of the ‘‘British 
Magazine,” ‘“The one commanding figure, and very 
lovable man, that the frightened and discomfited 
Church-people were now (i. e. 1833) rallying round. 
Few people have left so distinct an impression of 


206 WHO’S WHO OF 


themselves as this gentleman. For many years af- 
ter, when he was no more and Newman had left 
Rose’s standpoint far behind, he could never speak 
of him or think of him without renewed tender- 
ness.’ (Mozley, “Reminiscences,” i. 308.) 

It was at his house that the celebrated “Hadleigh 
Conference” was held, July 25-29, 1833. There 
were present, besides Rose of Cambridge, Percival 
(q. v.) and Hurrell.Froude (q. v.) of Oxford, and 
William Palmer (q. v.) of Trinity College, Dublin; 
the three ancient Anglican universities—for Dublin 
was that and nothing else at that date—being thus 
represented. Keble was to have been there, but did 
not attend. R. C. Trench, afterward Protestant 
archbishop of Dublin, was there, but “I was a young 
curate and only listened,” as he says himself. He 
adds that Newman was there, but that is quite in- 
correct. It was from this conference that the 
“Tracts” arose. 

“He was the man above all others fitted by his . 
cast of mind and literary powers to make a stand, 
if a stand could be made, against the calamity of the 
time,” says Newman (‘‘Apologia,” p. 104), and it 
was to him that he dedicated his fourth volume of 
“Sermons,” as to one “who, when hearts were fail- 
ing, bade us stir up the gift that was in us, and be- 
take ourselves to our true Mother.” 


a 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 207 
Rose, Henry J. 1800-1873. 


Brother of the above, with the same initials. 
Archdeacon of Bedford, he was said to have been 
the most eminent person of his time as a divine. 


oie 


Rounp, JAMes Tuomas. 1798-1860. Fellow 
and tutor of Balliol College, Oxford, and at 


one time proctor. 


Prebendary of St. Paul’s. He was one of the 
members of the fortnightly dining-club instituted by 
Newman. Vicar of Colchester and, at that time, of 
very High-church views, he afterward married a 
lady of less pronounced ideas and modified his own. 
(Mozley, “‘Reminiscences,” i. 277). 


oe 


Routu, Martin JosepH. 1755-1854. Queen's 
College, Oxford, then Demy at Magdalen 
College, Oxford, fellow, 1775, president, 


1791. 
A figure of romance and narrative and the last 
man in Oxford to wear a wig of the old-fashioned 


208 WHO’S WHO OF 


character, not merely as a covering for a bald head. 
During his tenure of office, he admitted no less than 
183 fellows. It was to Burgon that he addressed 
the classic piece of advice, so often quoted, “Always 
verify your references.” 

It was to Routh that Newman dedicated his “Pro- 
phetical Office of the Church,” and Routh, who had 
been in the habit of alluding to him as “‘that clever 
young gentleman of. Oriel,” to the end spoke of him 
as “the great Newman.” In 1845, when friends 
were few, Routh wrote to Newman asking him to 
examine for a scholarship at Magdalen. In his let- 
ter of refusal, after thanking the president, he adds, 
“You are the only person of station in Oxford who 
has shown me any countenance for a long course of 
years; and, much as I knew of your kindness, I did 
not expect it now.” 


RUSSELL, CHARLES WILLIAM. 1812—1880. 


He entered Maynooth, 1826, was ordained priest 
in 1835, and made professor of humanities at the 
college. He refused the dignities of vicar apostolic 
of Ceylon, the bishopric of Down, and the arch- 
bishopric of Armagh. In 1857, he became presi- 
dent of Maynooth, and was a man of great learning 
“who had, perhaps, more to.do with my conversion 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 209 


than anyone else,’ as Newman said. An important 
letter from him to Newman, pointing out his errone- 
ous views on the topic of transubstantiation as set 
forth in “Tract 90,” will be found in the volume of 
“Correspondence,” p. 118. 


ae 


RyperR, GreorGE DupLey. 1810-1880. 


Son of the once well-known Bishop Ryder, after 
whom a church in Birmingham is named, the first 
Evangelical to be appointed, amid a storm of pro- 
test, to the episcopal bench, as bishop of Gloucester; 
and subsequently bishop of Lichfield and Coventry 
(1824). 

Entered Anglican orders and married one of the 
four Miss Sargents (q. v.). Was rector of Easton, 
near Winchester, but in 1845, on account of his 
wife’s failing health, went abroad for a tour and 
while in Rome was received into the Catholic 
Church, having previously resigned his living. ‘The 
usual outburst from Samuel Wilberforce, his brother- 
in-law followed. ‘‘We are in great bitterness of 
heart just now. With the utmost precipitation and 
wilfulness, George Ryder has joined the Romanists. 
His sister Sophia has gone with him. And together 
and surrounding her with priests, our beloved Sophie 
(Mrs. R.) has been beguiled also. The news came 


210 WHO’S WHO OF 


as a thunderclap yesterday.” (“‘Life,” p. 136.) It 
was the first of a series. 

Being a married man, George Ryder could not 
become a priest. He and his wife are buried at 
Mount St. Bernard’s, Charnwood, and on their 
tombstone is a prayer of resignation to the will of 
God, composed by George Ryder and indulgenced 
by Pope Pius IX. His son Lisle—afterward Sir 
George Lisle Ryder, K.C.B.—was Newman’s god- 
son, and another son, Henry (gq. v.) was connected 
with the Birmingham Oratory from the age of 
twelve. 


62 


RypeR, Henry Icnatius DupLEy. ‘1837-1907. 


Son of George Ryder (q. v.), he went to the Ora- 
tory at Birmingham as a private pupil at the age 
of twelve, having been received into the Church with 
his parents. He subsequently entered the Oratory 
School, when that was founded, and, after passing 
through it, decided to join the Congregation. In 
order to test his vocation, his father sent him to the 
English College at Rome for a year, and he was 
subsequently with Newman in Dublin for some time. 
He became a novice in 1856 and was ordained priest 
in 1863. After Newman’s death he became pro- 
vost of the Birmingham Oratory and was created 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 211 


doctor of divinity by papal decree. His name is 
included in the list of his associates by Newman at 
the conclusion of the ‘‘Apologia.” 

I have endeavored in a short biographical essay 
prefixed to my book ‘‘On Miracles and Some Other 
Matters” (Burns, Oates, and Washbourne) to 
give some account of the work of a man who has 
been more overshadowed by his great leader than is 
perhaps quite fair to his reputation, and his real ex- 
cellence as a writer may be judged from his collected 
‘Essays,’ a work which the public owes to the filial 
affection of his brother Oratorian the Rev. Joseph 
Bacchus. 


ae 


ST. JoHN, AMBROSE. 1815-1876. Westminster, 
and Christ Church, Oxford. 


He entered Anglican orders and was curate to 
Henry Wilberforce and subsequently with Newman 
at Littlemore, becoming a Catholic one month be- 
fore Newman. He joined the Birmingham Ora- 
tory, became head-master of the school after the 
resignation of Mr. Darnell (q. v.), and so remained 
until his death. He was the fidus Achates of New- 
man, who said of him in a letter to Mr. Dering, 
‘He had been my life, under God, for thirty-two 
years,” and at the end of the “Apologia,” in enu- 


212 WHO’S WHO OF 


merating those around him, “And to you, especially, 
dear Ambrose St. John, whom God gave me, when 
he took everyone else away; who are the link be- 
tween my old life and my new; who have now for 
twenty-one years been so devoted to me, so patient, 
so zealous, so tender; who have let me lean hard 
upon you; who have watched me so narrowly; who 
have never thought of yourself, if I was in ques. 
tion.” 


ci 


SARGENT FAMILY. 


The Rev. John Sargent was what used to be called 
a “‘squarson,” being owner, patron of the living, 
and rector of Lavington, a very small place in Sus- 
sex. There he died in 1833, aged 52. Manning 
was his curate and succeeded him. 

He had two sons: 

John Gartin, who died in 1829, a fortnight after 
matriculating at Oriel College, Oxford. 

Henry, who died in 1836, after a long illness. 
On his death, Samuel Wilberforce came into posses- 
sion of the Lavington property in virtue of his wife, 
a fact which enabled him to describe himself, as he 
delighted to do, as‘a “Sussex squire.’ 

Mr. Sargent had four daughters, all associated 
with the Movement. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 213 


The eldest, Emily, married Samuel Wilberforce 
(q. v.), and is buried at the east end of the church 
at Lavington, outside the building, side by side with 
her husband and her sister Caroline. 

The second, Mary, married Henry Wilberforce, 
a pupil in his boyhood of Mr. Sargent (q. v.). 

The third, Caroline, married Henry Edward 
Manning (q. v.), whom she predeceased by many 
years. 

The fourth, Sophia, ‘‘a very sylph in form and in 
feature,” says T. Mozley, married George Ryder 
(q. v.) and was received into the Catholic Church 
with him. 


oe 


SEAGER, Charles. 1808-1878. Magdalen, and, 
subsequently, Worcester College, Oxford, 
where he was a scholar and for a time lec- 
turer on Hebrew. 


He took Anglican orders, but became a Catholic 
at Oscott in 1843. He was in his day a somewhat 
distinguished Orientalist and for a time professor of 
Hebrew and comparative philology at the abortive 
Catholic University College, at Kensington. 


[AW2) 
GBs 


214 WHO’S WHO OF 


SEWELL, WILLIAM. 1804-1874. Fellow and tu- 
tor of Exeter College, Oxford, and profes- 
sor of moral philosophy. 


Founder of Radley College and also of St. Co- 
lumba’s College, County Dublin. 

“He was considered,’ says Mozley (‘Reminis- 
cences,”’ ii. 26), “to do Newman good service both as 
professor and also as a writer of reviews.” ‘He 
was,” wrote Ornsby (“Memoirs of Hope-Scott,” i. 
274), “not without an influence, though his views, 
steeped with Platonism, and coloured with the horror 
of ‘Jesuitism’ worthy of Mr. Whalley, exposed him 
to more ridicule than his genius deserved. They 
exhibit, in curious combination, elements of Tracta- 
rianism, of the older form of High Church, and of 
Protestantism even of the Orange hue.” 


oe 


SEWELL, RICHARD. 1803-1864. Lay fellow of 
Magdalen College, Oxford. 


Brother of the above and the mainstay of “The 
Surplice,”’ a periodical connected with the Move- 
ment which, though very short lived, was marked by 
great distinction. 


oe 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 215 


SHREWSBURY, BERTRAM, (17th Earl of.) 1832- 
1856. 


His death ended the senior line and transferred 
the title to the junior branch, the Talbots of Sal- 
warpe, in Worcestershire, thus, incidentally, from 
Catholic to Protestant hands. Much of his prop- 
erty was left to Lord Edmund Howard on condition 
of taking the name of Talbot. 

After his death there was protracted litigation 
over his affairs, in which Hope-Scott (q.v.) was 
concerned, and as to the upshot of which and the 
justice thereof, he had a very strong opinion. The 
earl was a great benefactor to Catholic projects 
and, inter alia, was one of the founders of Mount 
St. Bernard’s Cistercian Abbey, at Charnwood in 
Leicestershire, the other being De Lisle (q. v.). 


& 


SIBTHORPE, RALPH WaLpDo. 1792-1879. Fellow 
of Magdalen College, Oxford. 


He may fairly be called the “Tragic Comedian” 
of the Oxford Movement. He was brother of the 
somewhat eccentric Colonel Sibthorpe, M.P. whose 
motions in the House of Commons were the subject 
of numerous jokes in “‘Punch.”’ In his quite early 
days, Ralph had made a vigorous attempt to enter 


216 WHO’S WHO OF 


the Catholic Church, but was forcibly prevented by 
his brother. He subsequently went to Oxford, be- 
came a fellow of Magdalen College, took Anglican 
orders, and was at one time connected with St. 
James’ Proprietary Chapel at Ryde, in the Isle of 
Wight, for long a center of advanced ritualism. 
In October, 1841, he was received into the Catholic 
Church by Wiseman at Oscott, being the first swal- 
low of the flight. Newman was blamed for this, 
but says in a letter written, of course, before he 
himself had become a Catholic, “You will observe 
that Sibthorpe traces his conversion to a study of 
scripture, and expressly states that the ‘Tracts for 
the Times’ were the only anti-Roman works which 
kept him from Rome.’’ Further, writing to Bow- 
den (December 29, 1842): ‘“Sibthorpe has just 
been here, dressed very impressively and eating fish; 
else just the same. He dined in Magdalen College 
Hall with no embarrassment, I am told, on either 
side; rolling his eyes and turning up his eyeballs (N. 
B.—This was his habit as a protestant) and talk- 
ing.” 

In 1843, he returned to Protestantism. Wise- 
man was so prostrated by the news as to spend an 
entire day in bed, utterly overcome. On this event 
J. B. Mozley (‘Letters,”’ p. 149) remarks: ‘“‘Sib- 
thorpe (who has lately renounced Rome and re- 
turned to the Church he had so lately forsaken) 
is expected here at Christmas. He has suffered, 
Bloxam says, amazingly throughout. But there 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 217 


are some persons who privately enjoy these spir- 
itual uneasinesses and doubts, and I half suspect 
he is one. Mariolatry is the point on which he 
was startled. I have no doubt there are things to 
astonish one in that way, but he might have 
anticipated them.” 

In 1865, he returned to the Catholic Church, but 
only, it seems, to leave it once more prior to his 
death, for, according to the ‘“‘Dictionary of National 
Biography,” the Anglican burial service was by his 
own special request read over his coffin at the 
Lincoln Cemetery, though Bishop Wilberforce’s 
wisitey declares that he died a Catholic. “As an 
example of mental instability, he stands out in the 
story of the Movement. 


ae 


SIMPSON, RICHARD. 1820-1876. Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


He entered Anglican Orders and became a 
Catholic in 1845. He was a colleague of Sir John 
Acton in the Liberal Catholic campaign in the 
“Rambler,” of which he was editor after Capes’s 
resignation in 1858, and in the ‘““Home and Foreign 
Review.” 

He assisted Gladstone in writing his pamphlet on 


218 WHO’S WHO OF 


“Vaticanism,” but remained a practical Catholic to 
the end of his life. 


oe 


SMITH, BERNARD. 1815-1903. Fellow of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford. 


He entered Anglican orders and became rector 
of Leadenham, in Lincolnshire, where he was a very 
early introducer of additional ornaments, having a 
processional crucifix in 1842, an altar-cross and 
lights, with a stone altar constructed from a tomb. 
He is also said to have worn a maniple as a step in 
the direction of eucharistic vestments. On a visita- 
tion by his bishop, that prelate ordered the discon- 
tinuance of the altar-lights and of unleavened bread 
in the communion ‘service. 

Smith was much upset by this and, having read 
Milner’s ‘End of Controversy” and been much im- 
pressed by it, he was finally brought into the 
Catholic Church by a sermon preached by Wise- 
man in St. Barnabas Church, Nottingham. A very 
unjust attack was made on Newman over this con- 
version, and the story will be found in the “Apolo- 
gia,” where the identity of the convert is concealed 
under the initials “B.S.” 

Fle was a student at Oscott, 1844-1847, and 


ee ee ee ee ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 219 


it was during that time that Wiseman, burning to 
know what was going on in Newman’s mind, sent 
Bernard Smith to Littlemore to form his own con- 
clusions and report. The tale is narrated in the 
“Life of Wiseman” (i. 425) and also in that of 
Newman (i. 83), but the former is the fuller 
description from which the following quotations 
are taken. “Mr. Bernard Smith—Pugin’s ‘most 
glorious man’—was deputed to go and see New- 
man at Littlemore. This as an old friend he could 
well do, and he was to try his best to ascertain the 
prospect before them. . . . Newman had been for 
years hinting, in his own almost imperceptible way, 
in which direction he was moving. . . . Each sign 
was hardly perceptible to the public; each was full 
of meaning to the few whom it most concerned. 
‘Newman,’ says Dean Stanley, ‘had recourse to 
whispering, like the slave of Midas, his secret to 
the reeds.’ And it was on the occasion of Mr. 
Smith’s visit to Littlemore that the last of these 
whispers—so significant to those who knew the 
man—was given... . He arrived, and was re- 
ceived by Newman with marked coldness. New- 
man said little and soon left the room. The others 
crowded round him, full of curiosity about Oscott 
and the English ‘Roman Catholics. ... Then 
Newman reappeared for a moment and asked Mr. 
Smith to remain to dinner. Then came the ‘last 
whisper.’ At dinner-time Newman appeared: and 


220 WHO’S WHO OF 


as he stood for a moment in the middle of the room, 
Smith saw that he was dressed in grey trousers. 
To Mr. Smith, who had known Newman for nearly 
ten years, having often acted as his curate at Lit- 
tlemore, the significance of this was absolutely 
final. Newman’s excessive strictness as to clerical 
costume was well known to his intimates. This 
was an avowal to Smith himself, and through him 
to Oscott, that he regarded himself as being in lay 
communion, and had abandoned the externals of a 
clergyman. Newman perfectly knew that Smith’s 
arrival was a query from Wiseman, ‘Are we to 
expect you?’ and this was his answer. The move 
to Rome must be near. Mr. Smith’s absolute sat- 
isfaction with his visit to Littlemore was apparent 
to Dr. Wiseman on his return. ‘What did he say 
to make you so confident?’ Wiseman asked. ‘He 
hardly spoke,’ was the reply. Wiseman persisted 
in asking for the reason of Smith’s conviction and 
brought it forth at last. He was utterly disap- 
pointed. ‘I knew,’ was Mr. Smith’s reply, ‘that 
you would think nothing of it. But I know the man 
and I know what it means. He will come, and come 
soon.’ Smith was rector of Great Marlowe for 
fifty-three years, and, for the latter part of them, 
canon of Westminster. He was a_ well-known 
entomologist. 


ae 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 221 


SPENCER, THE Hon. GEORGE (Jn Religion, Fr. 
Ignatius of St. Paul, Congregation of The 
Passion). 1799-1853. Eton, and Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Son of the second Earl Spencer. He took 
Anglican orders in 1824 and was chaplain to 
Bishop Blomfield. He was received into the Catho- 
lic Church in 1830, and became a secular priest and 
a professor at Oscott, much of the ground on which 
that college is built having been purchased with 
money given by Fr. Spencer to Bishop Walsh for 
that purpose. In 1848, he entered the Congrega- 
tion of the Passion, and, just as in the case of Bur- 
der (q.v.), was believed to be in articulo mortts 
and took all the vows and was clothed while still 
a novice. The remainder of his life was spent in 
the most arduous missionary labors, in which he 
was brought in close contact with those interested 
in the Movement, and he had much to do with 
turning Wiseman’s mind toward England and the 
possibility of its return to the faith. With De 
Lisle he was early associated, and, in fact, it was 
while staying with him at Garendon that Spencer 
was received into the Catholic Church. He ap- 
pears to have been somewhat of a viveur in his 
early days and gives the following account of his 
turning from that phase to a more serious one. 
In 1820, he was present at a performance of the 
opera of “Don Giovanni.” “The last scene repre- 


222 WHO’S WHO OF 


sents Don Giovanni seized in the midst of his 
licentious career by a troop of devils and hurried 
down to hell. As I saw the scene I was terrified 
at my own state. I knew that God, who knew what 
was within me, must look on me as one in the same 
class as Don Giovanni . .. this holy warning I 
was to find in an opera-house in Paris.” 


ae 


STANLEY, ARTHUR PENRHYN. 1815-1881. 


Educated at Rugby under Arnold (whose “Life” 
he afterward wrote and of whom he was the genu- 
ine product), and at Balliol College, Oxford, fellow 
of University College, Oxford, 1839, canon of Can- 
terbury, 1851, professor of ecclesiastical history and 
canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 1856, dean of 
Westminster, 1863. 

His failure to secure the Regius professorship of 
divinity at Oxford was due to his sermons on the 
relations of the church and state. The professor- 
ship went to Jacobson, afterward bishop of Ches- 
ter. An intimate friend of W. G. Ward (q. v.) 
and almost an adherent of the Movement in earlier 
days, he diverged into what in those days was ex- 
treme latitudinarianism, preached in Presbyterian 
pulpits, defended Colenso, and was a strong sup- 
porter of the Gorham judgment. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 223 


His very remarkable parallel between the Hamp- 
den affair in 1836 and the proceedings against 
Ward and Newman in 1845 is as striking a docu- 
ment as can be found among those connected with 
the Movement. (See his “Life,” 1. p. 337.) 

It was Stanley who was the author of the famous 
remark: “How different the fortunes of the 
Church of England might have been if Newman 
had been able to read German.” (It was during 
his studies of Confucius that ‘The Prig’”’ was led 
to emit the opinion that if Newman had been able 
to read Chinese, things would have been different 
from what they were). In this connection it may 
be noted that, partly from his own visits to Ger- 
many and partly from his close connection with the 
court, then, under the influence of the Prince Con- 
sort, actively Germanizing the country, Stanley was 
one of the first to become bitten with the methods 
and ideas of Teutonic theology. ‘This was recog- 
nized as a danger but by few—Rose (q. v.), for 
example, and Pusey (q. v.), who, in 1851, wrote to 
Bishop Wilberforce (‘‘Life of Wilberforce,” p. 
203). “Germanism is (as the Bishop of London, 
too, thinks) a far greater and more imminent peril 
than Romanism.”’ 

He had singular limitations, being hopelessly un- 
arithmetical, as the well-known story, ‘Perhaps 
three sevens are not twenty-two?” reveals, and on 
that Dean Church wrote (“Life and Letters of 
Church,” p. 293), “Stanley had intellectual de- 


224. WHO'S WHO OF 


fects, like his physical defects as to music, or smell 
or colour, or capacity for mathematical ideas, which 
crippled his capacity for the sympathy he wished 
to spread all round him. 

“One of these defects is indicated in what his 
critics say of his aversion to metaphysics and dog- 
matic statements. They were to his mind like the 
glass which the fly walks on and cannot penetrate: 
when he came to them his mind ‘would not bite.’ 
Another defect seemed to me always his incapacity 
for the spiritual and unearthly side of religion; the 
side which is so strong in the people whom he Op- 
posed, Newman and Keble, and, in a lower way, 
the Evangelicals; the elevations and aspirations 
after Divine affections, and longings after God, 
which, whether genuine or alloyed, are above the 
historic and dramatic plane which was so congenial 
to him. These were two enormous disqualifica- 
tions to a religious teacher and there were others, 
among them a certain freely indulged contempt for 
what he did not like, and a disposition to hunt down 
and find faults where he did not love people, espe- 
cially where he did not think them quite true, as in 
the case of Newman and S. Wilberforce.” 

Stanley’s sister became a Catholic in 1856. 


Life, by R. E. Protheroe and Dean Bradley. 
1894. 


a 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 225 


STANTON, RICHARD. 1820-1901. Brasenose Col- 
lege, Oxford. 


He was ordained a deacon in the Anglican 
Church, but the bishop of Oxford refused to give 
him further orders on account of his advanced 
views. He was with Newman at Littlemore in 
1843, and was received with him in 1845. He 
went with him also as a novice to Sta. Croce, was 
ordained priest in 1847, and was the first Oratorian 
to come to England, where he was at first at Mary- 
vale, and then assisted Faber to found the London 
Oratory, 1849. He was a distinguished liturgical 
scholar, and for many years edited the “Ordo.” 
He published the Menology for England and 
Wales and was co-editor with Dr. Knox of the 
“First and Second Douay Diaries” and ‘Cardinal 
Allen’s Letters.’ He was custodian of the West- 
minster archives and did much in arranging and 
cataloguing them. 


ce 


STEWART, JAMES. Trinity College, Cambridge. 
M.A. 


Took Anglican orders and was curate at Wolver- 
ton but, becoming a Catholic, went with Newman 
to Dublin as professor of ancient history, an ap- 


226 WHO'S WHO OF 


pointment which, like that of Ornsby (q. v.), met 
with the opposition of Cardinal Cullen. This was, 
however, overcome in the two cases in question, 
though not in all, and Stewart remained connected 
with University College, Dublin, long enough to 
become a fellow of the Royal University. 


oe 


SUMNER, JOHN Birp. 1780-1862. Eton, and 
King’s College, Cambridge. 


Bishop of Chester and subsequently archbishop 
of Canterbury. On his appointment to the former 
position Newman wrote (‘Letters and Corre- 
spondence,” i. 165) that it “has given me sincere 
pleasure,” yet he was the first of the bishops to fall 
foul of the “Tracts.” ‘‘Conciliatory and moder- 
ate,’ Chambers says of him; but one would not 
have suspected it from these charges in which he 
denounced the writers of the ‘“Tracts” as “under- 
mining the foundations of our Protestant Church 
by men who dwell within her walls,’ and he also 
speaks of the bad faith of those who “‘sit in the 
Reformation seat and traduce the Reformation.” 
A later charge denounced the work of these men 
as that of Satan. 

He is not to be confused with his brother 
CHARLES RICHARD, who was bishop of Winchester, 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 227 


nor with his son GEORGE HENRY, who was suffra- 
gan bishop of Guildford. 


SYMONS, BENJAMIN Parsons, 1785-1878. Wear- 
den of Wadham College, Oxford. 


He was one of the six doctors who suspended 
Pusey (q. v.), and a vigorous opponent of the 
Movement, for which reasons he was (unsuccess- 
fully) opposed when his turn came to be made vice- 
chancellor of the university. He was in the chair 
at the meeting of the Church Missionary Society 
when Newman was expelled from its secretaryship 
on account of a pamphlet which he had published 
advocating the subordination of the society to the 


Church of England. 


oe 


Tait, ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL. 1811-1882. Glas- 
gow University, and Balliol College, Ox- 
ford. 


In 1842, he was head-master of Rugby; 1849, 
dean of Carlisle; 1856, bishop of London; 1868, 


228 WHO'S WHO OF 


archbishop of Canterbury. Tait, who was brought 
up a Presbyterian, became an Anglican and held by 
his views with great firmness and conscientiousness, 
since he refused to take the declaration required by 
the holder of the professorship of moral philosophy 
in Glasgow, a position which he was very desirous 
of occupying, because, in his opinion, it could not be 
taken by a conscientious Anglican; though, as a 
matter of fact, that declaration had been taken by 
others of that denomination. However, his entire 
career was tinged by his early opinions, and he was 
an opponent of Newman from the outset and one 
of the four tutors who denounced “Tract go,” 
which, by the way, was brought under his notice by 
the impetuous Ward without the slightest idea of 
what was to follow. It is a curious thing that the 
archbishopric of Canterbury was assigned to him in 
joke from his earliest days, and when only twenty 
years of age, in reply to an inquiry as to why he 
had walked round by Lambeth, which was out of 
his way, he said, ‘‘Well, I wanted to see how I shall 
like the place when I get there.’ Canon Oakeley 
(q. v.) wrote to him on his appointment: “I re- 
member it is what your friends predicted long ago at 
Balliol and it is an evidence of your prescience . . . 
what a curious fact that one like myself should 
have been a pupil of the bishop of Winchester and 
the tutor of the archbishop of Canterbury’; and 
when dying, he said to those around, “let my dear 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 229 


friend the archbishop of Canterbury know as soon 
as I am gone.” Life, by Davidson and Benham, 
189gI. 


ae 


Tasot, Mor. GILBERT CHETWYND. 1816-1890. 


A constant adviser of the popes of his period, and 
one whose name frequently appears in the cor- 
respondence of the time and notably, of course, in 
that of Cardinal Manning. 


ci 


TICKELL, GEORGE. 1815-1893. Balliol College, 
afterwards Stowell fellow of University Col- 
lege, Oxford. 


He studied for the bar and during that time 
attended Margaret Street Chapel (see Oakeley, 
Frederick). When on a visit to Belgium he made 
acquaintance with some members of the Weld family 
and was received into the Catholic Church in that 
country. He entered the Society of Jesus and was 
for a time rector of Mount St. Mary’s, Chesterfield, 


230 WHO'S WHO OF 


and afterward prefect of studies at Stonyhurst, 
where, in St. Mary’s Hall, he died. 


oe 


ULLATHORNE, WILLIAM BERNARD. 1806-1889. 


A lineal descendant of the family of Blessed 
Thomas More. He went to sea early in life, but 
returned; entered the Benedictine Order, and was 
professed in 1825. Sent to Australia to settle ec- 
clesiastical matters, and, having visited Norfolk 
Island, he was largely responsible for the abandon- 
ment of that den of infamy. Bishop of Hetalona 
and vicar apostolic of the central district, in 1846, 
he became first bishop of Birmingham on the estab- 
lishment of the hierarchy in 1850. On his retire- 
ment in 1888 he was made archbishop of Cabasa. 
Fle was in very close relationship with Newman and 
other converts, especially Newman, and, as his dio- 
cesan, was his firm friend and adviser. 

He was a man of great learning, but absolutely 
destitute of initial aitches, a fact which is said to 
have robbed him of the archbishopric of Westmin- 
ster, for which position he was much talked of after 
the death of Wiseman. Manning chose him as one 
of his consecrators, it is said, for this reason. He 
was a small man, but in pontificals did not give one 
that impression; and when he preached, one entirely 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 231 


forgot his h-less habit. ‘‘I was not pleased,” wrote 
Newman, on one occasion, “‘at your talking of Dr. 
Ullathorne as a little man. It may be a fact, but 
it is not a dogmatic fact.” 

Autobiography, ed. by Theodosia Drane. 1891. 
Letters ed. by the same, 1892. 


ci 


WatTTs-RUSSELL, MICHAEL. 


In company with his wife, two other ladies, and 
his three children, he was received into the Catholic 
Church at Northampton in 1845. After his wife’s 
death he entered the Passionist order and was for 
a time superior of their house at Harborne, a part 
of Birmingham. 


SB 


Warp, Witiiam Georce. 1812-1882. Win- 
chester, and Christ Church, Oxford. Fel- 
low and tutor of Balliol college. 


He was also lecturer at Balliol in mathematics, a 
post of which he was deprived for his Tractarian 
views. The connection between the two seems a 
little difficult to follow, but one of his contempo- 


232 WHO’S WHO OF 


raries notes that Ward was capable of introducing 
and did introduce his views on any topic into any 
course of teaching of any subject, and, be it. re- 
marked, he perfectly admitted the justice of this 
deprivation himself, 

There is no more interesting nor human character 
in the whole of the Movement, and what he was 
may be studied in the “Life” by his son Wilfred 
Ward, so well known as a Catholic writer in our 
Own times. 

T. Mozley says (‘Reminiscences,” ii. 5) that 
Ward “had been instantaneously converted to New- 
man by a single line in the introduction to one of his 
works, to the effect that Protestantism could never 
have been corrupted into Popery.” Isaac Williams 
(“‘Autobiography,” p. 85) states that it was the 
reading of Hurrell Froude’s ‘“Remains” that was 
the cause of his adherence to the Movement. 
Newman says of him that “he was never a High 
Churchman, never a Tractarian, never a Puseyite, 
never a Newmanite.”’ As a matter of fact he was 
one of that body of men who, again to quote New- 
man “cut into the Movement at an angle” and 
formed a party called “The Mountain,” to which 
also belonged J. Morris (q. v.), Bloxam (gq. v.), 
and Bowyer (q. v.). There is an account of a din- 
ner of this body called by Morris to “talk strong,” 
to which A. W. Pugin (q. v.) was brought by 
Bloxam, and at which it is related that Ward 
“screamed in ecstasy at what was said.” 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 233 


He was for some time closely connected with the 
“British Critic.” “Ward, ’* says Church (“Life and 
Letters,” p: 320), “got hold of the ‘British Critic’ 
and drove it, like Phaethon, till upset, and he was 
tumbled into matrimony and the Roman Church,” 
a somewhat compressed account which will be cleared 
up below. Afterward, when T. Mozley became 
editor of that publication, Ward was something of 
a thorn in his side. (‘‘Reminiscences,” il. 225.) 
“T did but touch a filament or two in one of his mon- 
strous cobwebs, and ‘off he ran instantly to Newman 
to complain of my ‘gratuitous impertinence. Many 
‘years after, I was forcibly reminded of ‘him ‘by a 
pretty group of a plump little Cupid flying to ‘his 
mother to show a'‘wasp:sting he ‘had just received.” 
The “British ‘Critic’ having come to an end, Ward 
turned his energies 'to what was:at first intended to 
be a'‘pamphlet, but ‘eventually: grew into a book of 
five hundred pages entitled, “The Ideal. ofa Chris- 
tian Church,” in‘which Roman: doctrine was openly 
preached and in‘which occurs the passage of which 
so much use’ was'made: “Oh, most joyful!: most 
wonderful! ‘most unexpected sight! ‘We find the 
whole cycle of Roman: doctrine gradually possessing 
numbers of English: Churchmen.” ‘It ‘is perhaps 
hardly’ to be wondered »at’ that! this. book. should 
cause a storm, the result of which was’ that certain 
of the passages were: censured’ by Convocation, 
~which was no doubt reasonable for’ a Protestant 
“body; that Ward was deprived of his degrees and 


234 WHO’S WHO OF 


turned back into an undergraduate, which was a 
childish bit of spite; and that an effort to condemn 
“Tract 90,” which had then been four years before 
the public, was only prevented by the veto of the 
proctors, announced by Mr. Guillemard of Trinity 
College, the senior proctor. This could only defer 
the question for the period of office of the proctors, 
but it was never revived. 

A few months-after these events, Ward was re- 
ceived into the Catholic Church, as to which there 
is a curious misstatement in Archbishop’s Trench’s 
“Letters and Memorials” (ii. 260). 

“The first thing he (Ward) did when he went 
Over was to marry. It made the Roman Catholics 
very angry, as they wanted him to be a Roman 
Catholic priest.” Thus is history written! The 
actual facts are that Ward had married months be- 
fore as an Anglican clergyman,—for he had taken 
orders,—and that he and his wife were received to- 
gether into the Catholic Church in September, 1845. 
Before this, however, and after the retirement of 
Newman to Littlemore, he had “succeeded Dr. 
Newman as the acknowledged leader,” says Dean 
Bradley; and Dean Stanley speaks of the great in- 
fluence which he wielded by his transparent candor, 
by his uncompromising pursuit of the opinions he 
had adopted.” 

His Catholic life has been so fully described by 
his son that it need only here be mentioned that 
Newman offered him any chair at the Catholic Uni- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 23.5 


versity in Dublin which he cared to accept, but 
Ward, who was then professor of theology at St. 
Edmund’s College, Ware, very wisely refused to 
leave that position. 

He was a man of great physical bulk—‘‘a huge 
moon-faced man,” says Stanley (“‘Life,” i. 130); 
and Church (“The Oxford Movement,” p. 207) 
says, ““IThere was something to smile at in his per- 
son, and in some of his ways-—his unbusinesslike 
habits, his joyousness of manner, his racy stories; 
but few more powerful intellects passed through 
Oxford in his time.” 

“Ward’s figure was grotesque, almost Falstaf- 
fian; though very fat, he walked with a sort of skip, 
and wore low loose shoes which he had a habit of 
kicking off.’ (Goldwin Smith, ‘Reminiscences,’ 
63.) It is told of him that being invited to dine 
at All Souls College, Oxford, where he was a candi- 
date for a fellowship, so that the existing fellows 
might make his acquaintance, he hopelessly lost his 
shoes during the meal and was obliged to leave the 
room in his stocking feet. He was not elected. 

Dean Stanley was, perhaps, his most intimate 
friend, though poles apart from him on religious 
questions, and his summary of Ward’s character 
may well be added. (‘‘Life,” i. 169.) “His great 
honesty and fearless and intense love of truth, and 
his deep interest in all that concerns the happiness 
of the human race. . . . He is the best arguer and 
the most clear-headed man that I ever saw; though, 


236 WHO'S WHO OF 


in one way, his great facility is one of his defects, 
for it has attained such gigantic heights as rather 
to overshadow some of the other parts of his mind. 
He is also enthusiastically fond of mathematics 
and, I believe, a very good mathematician... 
very humble, very devout and affectionate... 
has been badly educated, and, therefore, though 
very well informed on many points, is on many 
others, such as modern literature and geography, 
excessively ignorant.”’ 

William George Ward and the Oxford Move- 
ment, by Wilfred Ward. 1880. 

William George Ward and the Catholic Revival, 
by Wilfred Ward. 1893. 


se 


WHATELY, RICHARD. 1787-1863. Fellow of 
Oriel College, Oxford, 1811, archbishop of 
Dublin, 1831. 


Of this once well-known man little need be said 
here, but his early connection with Newman makes 
him a prominent figure in the history of the Move- 
ment. Newman said that Whately taught him to 
think correctly ‘‘and (strange office for an instruc- 
tor) to rely on myself.” A man particularly loyal 
to his friends, all his geese were swans. In spite of 
this fact, he does not seem to have been a lovable 


eet ee a ee 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 237 


character, though “character” he was, if one may 
judge from the vast cloud of stories associated with 
him and his doings, especially when a resident in 
Dublin. 

Life, by Miss Whately, 1866. 


cs 


WHITE, BLANCO. 1775-1841. 


One of the most curious figures of the Move- 
ment, White was born in Seville of Irish Catholic 
parents, brought up in their religion, and ordained 
a priest in 1799. He lost his faith, came to Eng- 
land, took Anglican orders, and became a member 
of Oriel College and a friend of Newman, the 
friendship being largely based on their common 
love for the violin, for the playing of which instru- 
ment they used to have frequent meetings. “Mr. 
Blanco White plays the violin and has an exquisite 
ear,’ Newman wrote to his sister Harriett; and in 
their frequent conversations on religious subjects, 
White used often to say to Newman, who was de- 
fending some thesis, ‘“Ah, Newman, that will lead 
you to Catholic error.” 

Of White’s connection with the Hampden mat- 
ter, an account is given (s. v. “Hampden’’). He 
went to be tutor to Whateley’s children when that 
ecclesiastic was Protestant archbishop of Dublin, 


238 WHO’S WHO OF 


but became too liberal even for him and left, turn- 
ing to Unitarianism. Newman, whom he used to 
apostrophize as “My Oxford Plato,” writes of his 
death (‘‘Life,” i. 81), “He dies a Pantheist deny- 
ing that there is an Ultra-mundane God, apparently 
denying a particular Providence, doubting, to say 
the least, the personal immortality of the soul, med- 
itating from Marcus Aurelius, and considering that 
St. Paul’s Epistles are taken from the Stoic philoso- 
phy.” Except for his connection with the Move- 
ment, Blanco White would have been forgotten but 
for a single sonnet, certainly among the greatest in 
the English tongue, in virtue of which he must al- 
ways hold his place among the immortals. 


a 


Wuirty, Ropert, D.D. ?-7886. 


Born a Catholic, he joined the first Oratory, of 
which he remained a member for some time, then 
becoming a secular priest and eventually vicar- 
general and first provost of the chapter of West- 
minster. In 1857, he resigned all his dignities in 
order to enter the Society of Jesus. 


oe 


— i a et 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 239 


WILBERFORCE, HENRY WILLIAM. 1807-1873. 
Oriel College, Oxford. 


He took Anglican orders, and, in 1850, became 
a Catholic. It was to him that Newman, in the 
course of a walk in the New Forest, confided his 
doubt that perhaps it might be found that Rome 
was right. He was first a pupil of, and later curate 
to, Mr. Sargent (q. v.), one of whose daughters 
he married. ‘Certainly Henry Wilberforce is as 
little changed by being a husband and father as any 
one I know,” wrote J. B. Mozley (‘‘Letters,” p. 
53) in 1836. He is just the same perfectly irre- 
sistibly ludicrous person he always was.’ At the 
time of his conversion, he was vicar of East Far- 
leigh, in Kent, and suffered not only the loss of his 
living, but at the same time, by embezzlement, a 
large part of his private income. 

He revived, and for a time conducted, the now 
defunct ‘““Weekly Register,” once a paper of consid- 
erable importance. 

“Callista’’ was dedicated to him by Newman: 
“To you alone, who have known me so long, and 
who love me so well, could I venture to offer a 
trifle like this. But you will recognize the author 
in his work and take pleasure in the recognition.” 


oe 


240 WHO’S WHO OF 


WILBERFORCE, Rosert Isaac. 1800-1857. Fel. 
low of Oriel College, Oxford. 


Prebendary of York and archdeacon. The eld- 
est son of William Wilberforce (1759-1 833), who 
was the protagonist in the movement for the abolj- 
tion of slavery and the chief leader of the ‘‘Clap- 
ham sect,” satirized by Thackeray in the early part 
of “The Newcomes.” No two characters can have 
been less alike than William Wilberforce and the 
Venerable ‘Archdeacon Grantley—that most ad- 
mirably drawn personage. But Trollope clearly 
intended to describe the three sons of the first- 
named under the similitude of those of the second, 
for no one could mistake the reference :—''Perhaps 
Samuel was the general favorite; and dear little 
Soapy, as he was familiarly called, was as engaging 
a child as ever fond mother petted. . . . To speak 
the truth, Samuel was a cunning boy.’ Whether 
the characteristics of the other two bear any simili- 
tude to their originals, no one can doubt that, 
rightly or wrongly, Samuel, bishop of Oxford, 
(q. v.) was meant by this. 

As archdeacon, Wilberforce published a work on 
the “Principle of Authority in the Church,” which 
was in his history what the ‘Essay on Development”’ 
was in that of Newman. Shortly after its publica- 
tion he resigned his archdeaconry and was received 
into the Catholic Church. “He joined the evil 
schism in Paris,” says Samuel, forgetting to add, or 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 241 


perhaps being ignorant of the fact, that that city 
was chosen so that he himself might be less hurt. 
Shortly before the event Samuel had written to his 
brother: “I have earnestly prayed that you may 
be kept from this most fearful sin. . . . I think you 
so much better a man than I am that it is marvelous 
you should be ensnared by such a painted hag as that 
Roman Jezebel.” (“Life,”’ 245.) Robert mar- 
ried one of the Miss Sargents (q. v.), who died in 
1853. He was one of the most learned men of the 
Movement and is described by Bishop Lyttelton, of 
Southampton, as “the greatest philosophical theolo- 
gian of the Tractarians.’”’ Gladstone, writing to 
him, remarks, “In quitting the Church of England 
you inflict on it the worst injury it can receive.” 
Naturally, high hopes were entertained of him by the 
authorities of the Catholic Church; but when on his 
way to Rome to pursue his studies for the priest- 
hood, he was attacked by a malignant fever at Al- 
bano and there died. 


WILBERFORCE, SAMUEL. 1805-1873. Oriel Col- 
lege, Oxford. - 


Archdeacon of Surrey, 1839; dean of Westmin- 
ster, March, 1845; bishop of Oxford, October, 
1845; bishop of Winchester, 1869. 

Of this once remarkable man no extended notice 


242 WHO’S WHO OF 


is necessary, for the facts of his life will be found 
in the lengthy biography the later volumes of which 
created such stir at the time of their publication. 
(Quotations in this volume from the American edi- 
tion.) His connection with the Movement and its 
phases is indicated in the quotations concerning other 
figures of the time. Much difference of opinion has 
always existed as to his character and especially as to 
his sincerity. Church, always charitable, says of 
him, “he was, I believe, a thoroughly sincere man, 
with a very lofty and large idea of the religious aims 
to which he devoted all his life.’ Others would 
unquestionably take a harsher view of his character 
and base their opinion on his undoubted vacilla- 
tions, such as those on the Hampden question where, 
having first protested against the appointment of 
that cleric to the bishopric of Hereford, he subse- 
quently supported it, and finally was successful in 
preventing a prosecution of the bishop for heresy. 
Such a judgment is that of Goldwin Smith (‘‘Rem- 
iniscences,” 143.): “he was morbidly desirous of 
influence, which he seemed to cultivate without def- 
inite object. It was said that he would have liked 
to be on the committee of every club in London. 
He had the general reputation of not being strictly 
veracious; nor, as I once had occasion to see, when 
church party was in question, inflexibly just. He 
turned upon the Hampden question when he found 
that his course was giving offense at court, and was 
upbraided for tergiversation by his party. He 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 243 


turned upon the Irish question just in time to be pro- 
moted from Oxford to Winchester, and to what he 
probably coveted more than the income, the chancel- 
lorship of the Garter; and when he put forth a 
pathetic valedictory assuring the clergy of Oxford 
that he was agonised at leaving them, but could not 
disobey the call of the Spirit, he provoked a smile.’ 
Life. 1879-82. 


a 


WituaMs, Isaac. 1802-65. Harrow; Trinity 
College, Oxford. 


After the position had been in turn refused by R. 
Wilberforce and Hurrell Froude, Isaac Williams be- 
came curate to Newman at St. Mary’s. It was to 
him that Froude broached the project of a forward 
policy (s. v. “Hurrell Froude.”). It was to him, 
too, that Newman wrote the well-known letter on 
his immediate reception into the Catholic Church. 
The most modest and retiring of men, he found 
himself the center of a heated controversy when he 
became known as the author of “Tract 80,” “On 
Reserve in Religious Teaching.” Williams had 
been shocked, like many others, at the horribly fami- 
liar use of biblical expressions made by a certain 
type of religious person, and, after having read in 
Origen’s Commentary on the Gospels notices of a 


244 WHO’S WHO OF 


certain mysterious holding back of sacred truth, he 
wrote an essay on the subject when staying with 
Prevost (q. v.) at Norman Hill, Prevost’s place in 
Gloucestershire. Keble wanted it published as a 
‘“Tract’’; it was read to Pusey and Newman, and the 
title was suggested by the last named. Newman 
never seemed to know what a Tract might bring 
forth, and certainly never expected the explosion of 
Protestant wrath which burst out at this confirma- 
tion of their worst suspicions as to the double-dealing 
of the party. Probably, as usual, the worst de- 
nunciations were from those who knew nothing of 
the Tract but its title. It cost Williams the poetry 
professorship, for though, for his day, he was quite 
a prominent minor poet, when Keble resigned, Wil- 
liams was defeated by one Garbutt (q. v.) whose 
recommendation for the position was that he was 
not a T'ractarian, for his poetical gifts were far be- 
low those of Williams. It was the first serious 
reverse to the party in Oxford. Isaac Williams 
lived and died a clergyman of the Anglican Church. 
Autobiography. 


oP 


Wittiams, RoBert. 1811-1890. Oriel College, 
Oxford. 


Member of Parliament for Dorchester, 1835- 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 245 


1841. He is interesting as the person who called 
the attention of Newman to the words “Securus ju- 
dicat orbis terrarum” in Wiseman’s article in the 
“Dublin Review’ on the Donatists. ‘My friend, 
an anxiously religious man, now, as then, very dear 
to me, a Protestant still,” who pointed out the words 
in question was Mr. Williams, not, as the late Wil- 
fred Ward thought, R. Wilberforce. Mr. Ollard 
points this out (p. 63n.) and his statement is ren- 
dered testimony to by a letter of Newman’s to S. F. 
Wood (‘‘Correspondence,” p. 34) dated “In Fest. 5. 
Mich. 1839,” in which he says, ‘‘R. Williams has 
led me to look into Dr. W.’s new article in the “Dub- 
lin’? This Mr. Wood was at that time engaged in 
translating, with the help, among others, of Wil- 
liams, the breviary (with hymns translated by New- 
man). It appears that Prevost, who strongly ob- 
jected to the project, managed to stop it, since there 
was, so far as I know, no such publication issued.” 

Williams at the time in question was a very ad- 
vanced and ‘“‘extreme”’ man, a source of great anxiety 
to Pusey and Newman and on the point of becoming 
a Catholic. Later in life he completely altered his 
mind and became as extreme an Evangelical. His 
occupation was that of a banker. 


ae 


246 WHO'S WHO OF 


Witson, H. B. 1803-1888. Fellow and senior 
tutor of St. John’s ‘College, Oxford. 
Rawlinsonian professor of Anglo-Saxon. 


He was one of the four tutors who denounced 
“Tract 90” for taking a strained view of the Thirty- 
Nine Articles. Time has its revenges, and Mr. 
Wilson in after years was one of the writers in a. 
once notorious work, “Essays and Reviews,” in 
which his views on the interpretation of the articles 
and the conditions of honest subscription thereto 
‘had evidently undergone a startling change in the 
twenty years that had elapsed, for he was now able 
to argue in favor of the very mode of interpretation 
which he had then denounced, and some pages of 
his essay upon the National Church gave more pain 
perhaps to devout minds than any others in the vol- 
ume” (“Life of A. C. Tait,” i. 279). For the 
opinions therein expressed, he was delated to the 
Court of Arches, which sentenced him to suspen- 
sion, a verdict which was in due course reversed by 
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 

He must be distinguished from the following. 


e 


Witson, RoBERT F. 1809-1888. 


In his early days, curate to John Keble and, prior 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 247 


to that, curate at Bocking, on which account he was 
mentioned by Newman as ‘‘Wilson of Bocking.” 


& 


WINGFIELD, WILLIAM. 1814-2? M.A., Christ 
Church, Oxford. 


The son of Canon Wingfield, of York, he took 
Anglican orders and became curate to a Mr. 
Cooper, then incumbent of a West End chapel in 
London. Cooper instructed him to read the Fifth 
of November service, at that time a legal portion of 
the Book of Common Prayer. Wingfield refused. 
Cooper desired to dismiss him, and Wingfield ap- 
pealed to Blomfield, then bishop of London (q. v.), 
who upheld Mr. Cooper, though admitting that the 
preceding curate had not been interfered with for 
refusing to read the Athanasian Creed. The ac- 
count of this matter, given in the “Memorials of 
Serjeant Bellasis’ (p. 50), speaks of Wingfield as 
‘“‘a very quiet, cool, and exemplary person.” ‘The 
controversy took place in 1843, and two years later, 
Wingfield and his wife were received into the Cath- 
olic Church at Stonyhurst. His sister married W. 
G. Ward (q. v.). 


oe 


248 WHO'S WHO OF 


WIsEMAN, NicHoras Patrick, Cardinal. 1802- 
1865. 


An Irishman born in Spain and educated in 
Rome, he was one of the most learned and distin- 
guished men of his day and generation. His history 
cannot here be detailed save for incidents in it which 
relate to the Oxford Movement. These may be. 
preluded by the accounts of his appearance given 
by contemporaries. He was a very tall man, being 
six feet two inches in height, and in his later days 
ruddy and very portly. 

Fr. Purbrick (q. v.), a convert, afterward a pro- 
vincial of the Society of Jesus, tells of his attend- 
ance at an archiepiscopal reception, in 1850, where 
the cardinal stood between Mer. Searle and Fr. 
Lythgoe, both also corpulent personages. “J 
thought,” he says, “‘is this, then, the effect of prayer 
and fasting? Three such mountains of flesh I had 
never seen before.” ‘His presence,’ says another 
contemporary, “‘was what Italians call imponente. 
You might dislike him—you could not overlook 
him.”’ 

His first connection with the Movement was 
when, as president of the English College in Rome, . 
he was visited by Newman and H. Froude on their 
memorable visit to Rome. This was in 1833, be- 
fore the Movement had even been inaugurated by 
Keble’s sermon. Yet the far-seeing Wiseman noted 
the tendencies in the minds of his visitors, and in 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 249 


1847 he wrote: ‘From the day of Newman and 
Froude’s visit to me, never for an instant did I 
waver in my conviction that a new era had com- 
menced in England—to this grand object I devoted 
myself—the favorite studies of former years were 
abandoned for the pursuit of this aim alone.” It 
should be remembered that Wiseman was a man of 
very great learning in several directions and that he 
was by nature an ardent student. 

Everything, however, from this time was to be 
subordinated to the great work of his life. In 
1835, and again in the following year, he came to 
England and delivered courses of lectures which 
were largely attended, and as a result of the second 
of which Augustus Welby Pugin (q. v.), the cele- 
brated architect, entered the Catholic Church. 
For a scholar, the dignified position of president of 
the English College must have had great attrac- 
tions; but in 1840, he gave it up to become coad- 
jutor to Bishop Walsh of the Midland District of 
England and president of Oscott College. He was 
consecrated bishop of Melipotamus, and that ex- 
plains Thackeray’s characteristically contemptuous 
personification of the future cardinal as “‘the 
Bishop of Mealy Potatoes, in scarlet stockings and 
partibus infidelium.’ One last point in connection 
with his presidency of the English College must not 
pass unnoticed, namely, the visit paid to him by Mr. 
Gladstone and Mr.—afterward Lord—Macaulay 
(q. v.), after which the latter wrote the remarkable 


~ 


250 WHO’S WHO OF 


and oft-quoted passage on the church and the visit 
of the New Zealander to the ruins of London in his 
essay on Ranke’s “History of the Popes.” Prop- 
ter, many think, certainly post hoc. While at Os- 
cott, he founded the ‘‘Dublin Review,” to which he 
was a constant contributor and in which he wrote 
that famous article on ‘““The Anglican Claims,” in 
August, 1839, which Newman said “gave him a 
pain in his stomach.” Over the Movement he kept 
a constant watch, writing articles as occasion seemed 
to call for them, and when the first-fruits to the 
church began to arrive, he welcomed them to Os- 
cott, and from his hands most of them received the 
sacrament of confirmation. ‘The record in the Os- 
cott archives is sufficiently interesting to quote, as 
the names recorded are of note and many of them 
will be found in their proper places in these pages. 
1845. Confirmations. May 11. Benjamin But- 
land. St. George Mivart. August isth. W. 
Ward. J. D. Dalgairns. Frederick Bowles. 
Richard Stanton. November 1st. John Henry 
Newman. Ambrose St. John. John Walker. 
Frederick Oakeley.” J. W. and H. T. Marshall 
were confirmed later in the same year, and on the 
Ist of Jan. in the next appear the names of John 
Brande Morris, H. Formby, E. E. Estcourt, and G. 
Burder. 

Wiseman was appointed first archbishop of 
Westminster at the restoration of the hierarchy, 
and the tale of that time must be read elsewhere. 


THE OXFORD MOVEMENT 251 


Suffice it to say that if the somewhat flamboyant 
language of the pastoral issued ‘Out of the Flamin- 
ian Gate” did much to stir up the temporary fury 
of ignorant people in England, largely inflamed 
for political reasons, his subsequent letter ‘‘To the 
People of England” which appeared in the ‘‘Times”’ 
was an unusual tour de force in that it absolutely 
turned the tide of public opinion. 

From the time of the entry into the Catholic 
Church of the many distinguished persons mentioned 
above, and of others not named here, Wiseman en- 
couraged and helped the converts, who were, it 
must regretfully be admitted, a good deal cold- 
shouldered by many of the older generation of born 
Catholics like Lingard, and it was also under Wise- 
man’s encouragement that the Oratory arose and 
took root in Birmingham and in London. 


Life, by Wilfred Ward, 1897. 


Woop, SAMUEL FRANCIS. 1810-1843. 


A clergyman of saintly life whose early death 
was deeply mourned by Pusey (“‘Life,” ii. 396) 
and Newman, who wrote to him as ‘‘Charissime.”’ 
(“Letters and Correspondence,” p. 33.) (See also 
s. v. ‘Williams, R.’’) 


THE END 






; ’ 4 J i é 
i ; ‘ u ‘ j ‘ Ui +P i. 4 L. ‘¢ 
. ee ’ ‘ YG yoy ee CB AL ’ peet(ng? Fi 
P > é fire vi vas L ’ i ¢ na b ri, i? ‘4. 2 
Te WR ell Meteor , , ahd ied yon 4 "4 ay vi, een é 
nM el Oe ee re a i bl BU, cakel - ( Wes) Gay F ) M 
, \? J ; i bP cere i “47 "3, ile VP Ba log 
A a Py ii ind / wae oie é iw 
euv, As Mig et 


é { c ; P J 
hale eg! CER? | j Toa ie wee wt. F ; \ iy 
a os sek > & | ae ae P as P ia wy 7”) ; ee! ais oak » a — , 


nS ye 
che 
ei ae | ies 
at Ce 











